JUDGMENT :

This matter, although not appearing in the list as per my specific direction to appear on the next working day at the top of the list, the matter is treated to be on the day's list for the limited purpose of passing this order which does not pertain to the merits of the case.

2. By a judicial order dated July 16, 2021, this court had, apart from directing the matter to be returnable on the next working day, had specifically directed the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) to show-cause by 3 p.m. in my chamber as to why the virtual hearing disruptions were going on. Such show- cause reply was filed much after 3 p.m. and was handed over not in my chamber but to my A.C.O. on the said date. The latter was kind enough to immediately convey the same to me. Such report, which is a part of CO No.1237 of 2021, which is also appearing in the list today, discloses merely that endeavour is going on to increase the bandwidth of connectivity for the virtual hearing facilities of this court from 2 mbps to 100 mbps. Such excuse has been put forwarded by the administration at least for the past month. However, since I was a part of a two- Judge Recruitment Committee previously, I personally know that at least 150 posts had been sanctioned by the Government and due procedure for the appointment to fill up the posts was undertaken by this court. Such posts covered the virtual hearing issues as well, since those included Data Entry Operators, System Analysts and Programmers. However, due to some unknown reasons, the said recruitments have not taken place as yet. The bandwidth issue was also discussed previously. If the aforesaid issues are remedied, most of the woes of the litigants and the Bar regarding virtual hearings would be resolved. Unfortunately, no such steps have been disclosed in the reply to the show-cause.

3. Certain facts, relevant to the issue, are required to be disclosed, since all candles do not make it to ornate dinners but some are meant to be burnt for protest marches.

4. In the present case, despite a specific judicial order making the matter returnable on the next working day at the top and despite this Bench having determination to take up the matter both on July 16, 2021 and today, which is the next working day thereafter, the matter is not appearing in my list. I was taken by surprise when it was disclosed by my court officer, on scrutiny, that the same is appearing before a different Division Bench.

5. First, I did not issue a criminal contempt but stopped short of doing so in my order dated July 16, 2021, nor is an order passed in a civil revisional case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India appealable before a Division Bench. Although it has been clarified that the Chief Justice (including Acting Chief Justice) is the Master of the Roster and “more equal among equals” (not by Orwell but our own Supreme Court), the excess equality pertains only to the Administrative Side of this court and cannot override the Appellate Side Rules, framed and modified by the Full Court comprised of all Judges of this Hon'ble Court. There is doubt as to whether the Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice, in her/his administrative capacity as the Master of the Roster, can override a judicial order passed by a Bench having determination, fixed by the Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice herself/himself, and the file of the matter be assigned to some other court overnight. The Appellate Side Rules of this court clearly provide for quite a long time now that these matters are to be heard by Single Judges, coupled with the fact, as indicated above, that this court had determination on both the relevant dates to take up such matters; this creates translucence in the minds of all concerned parties.

6. “Do not wash your dirty linen in public” is a nice defence for the beneficiaries of an oppressive/corrupt system, but is the anathema of transparency, which is in-built in the concept of the judiciary being the last bastion of democracy. All