1. Petition under Article 32 seeking a mandated procedure for constituting Benches and establishing specialized courts in the Supreme Court and a High Court. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 328
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
ASOK PANDE – Petitioner
VERSUS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR.ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 147 OF 2018
Decided On : 11-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Reckless allegations levelled against Judges of High Court deprecated.
No mandamus can issue to direct a body or authority vested with rule making power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner.
Chief Justice is an institution in himself. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust.
Reckless allegations levelled against Judges of High Court deprecated.
No mandamus can issue to direct a body or authority vested with rule making power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner.
Chief Justice is an institution in himself. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Judicial Administration
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution if India – Article 32 – Original proceeding – Petition not challenging any judicial order of the High Court which even otherwise cannot be done under Article 32 – Petitioner casting aspersions on Judges of High Court – Reckless allegations levelled against Judges of High Court – Deprecated. (Para 4)
(b) Constitution of India – Article 145 – Order VI Rules 1, 2 and 4; Order XXXVIII Rule (1) and 12, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Petition seeking evolution of a “set procedure” for constituting Benches and allotment of cases to different Benches in Supreme Court – Also seeking mandamus for making of a rule, in the Rules of Procedure of Supreme Court, to the effect that a three judge Bench in the Court of the Chief Justice should consist of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges while a Constitution Bench should consist of five senior-most judges (or three ‘senior-most’ judges and two ‘junior-most’ judges) – Petition further seeking bifurcation of Supreme Court into a “Supreme criminal court”, with similar divisions to hear PIL, tax, service, land disputes and miscellaneous matters (etc.) – It is for Chief Justice to nominate Judges who would constitute a Bench to hear a cause, appeal or matter – He is the master of rolls – No mandamus can issue to direct a body or authority vested with rule making power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner – Relief would intrude into exclusive duty and authority of the Chief Justice – Constitution of Benches with senior-most or junior-most Judges – Article 124 investing all Judges with equal duty of adjudicating cases – To hold otherwise would be to cast a reflection on the competence and ability of other judges to deal with all cases. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12)
(1998) 1 SCC 1; (2018)1 SCC 196 – Relied upon
(c) Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order VI Rules 1, 2 and 4; Order XXXVIII Rule (1) and 12 – Submission of regulating constitution of Benches and allocation of cases by Chief Justice by a procedure cast in iron – Petitioner apprehending, in absence of such procedure, arbitrary exercise of power by Chief Justice – Chief Justice is primus inter pares – His position sui generis – Article 124, Constitution of India – Chief Justice is an institution in himself – There cannot be a presumption of mistrust. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who is a member of the Bar, has instituted these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming to be “a public spirited person”. He states that he is a “scholar in the field of the Constitution” and that he has filed nearly two hundred petitions in the public interest before the Allahabad High Court, Gujarat High Court and in Supreme Court as well. The reliefs which he seeks are as regards the constitution of Benches of Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court.
The averments contained in the petition indicate that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The petitioner seems to have a grievance with an order which was passed restraining his entry into the premises of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Chief Justice is an institution in himself. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Mandamus for specific rules on Bench composition based on seniority and the creation of specialized courts for different legal domains. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 )
3. The Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster with exclusive prerogative to constitute Benches; seniority does not determine case assignment. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 )
4. The Chief Justice of India and High Court Chief Justices possess the exclusive prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases as Master of the Roster. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 17 )
6. Who has the authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts?
The Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of a High Court are the Master of the Roster, possessing the exclusive prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases to ensure the efficient transaction of judicial work. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 )
7. Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the Supreme Court to frame specific rules for Bench constitution?
No, a mandamus cannot be issued to direct a body vested with rule-making power, such as the Supreme Court under Article 145, to make rules or to make them in a particular manner. (Para 6 , 11 )
8. Does seniority in appointment determine which cases a Judge of the Supreme Court should hear?
No, seniority in terms of appointment has no bearing on which cases a Judge should hear. Every Judge appointed under Article 124 is equally duty-bound to hear cases assigned by the Chief Justice. (Para 12 )
9. Is there a legal distinction between High Court judges appointed from the Bar and those from the district judiciary regarding their functions?
No, judges of the High Court drawn from the Bar or from those who have held judicial office for at least ten years discharge the same functions upon their appointment under Article 217. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J
1. The petitioner, who is a member of the Bar, has instituted these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming to be “a public spirited person”. He states that he is a “scholar in the field of the Constitution” and that he has filed nearly two hundred petitions in the public interest before the Allahabad High Court, Gujarat High Court and in this Court as well. The reliefs which he seeks are as regards the constitution of Benches of this Court and the Allahabad High Court. What is sought in these proceedings is depicted in the two prayers for relief which are extracted below:
“(a) to issue a writ of mandamus to the first respondent (Supreme Court of India) to evolve the set Procedure for constituting the benches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches in Supreme Court. The Petitioner seeks mandamus to the first respondents to have a specific rule in Supreme Court Rules that the three judges bench in Chief Justice court shall consist of the chief justice and two senior most judges and the Constitutional bench shall consist of five senior most judges or three senior most Judges and two junior most judges. The Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to the first respondent to constitute :
Supreme Criminal Court
Supreme PIL Court
Supreme Tax Court
Supreme Service Court
Supreme Land Dispute Court
Supreme Misc. Matter Court…. Etc.
(b) The Petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus to the second respondent i.e. Allahabad High Court to evolve set rules with respect to formation of benches and vesting of jurisdiction to them on the pattern of rules so framed by the Supreme Court. The rule should also contain that the bench of Advocate judges will be constituted with Advocate judges and the bench of service judges coming from eligibility criteria number one of article 217 (3) of Constitution with the judges coming from District judiciary not with Advocate judges.”
2. The petitioner has a litany of grievances, many of which are personal to him. The averments contained in the petition indicate that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The petitioner seems to have a grievance with an order which was passed restraining his entry into the premises of the High Court. The nature of his allegations is evinced in the following extract:
“For prosecuting the Petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act on the charge of writing a letter to the Chief Justice against the Misbehaviour of a judge, a Chief Justice ordered the listing of my case before the bench headed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal J. And he sitting with a judge coming from district judiciary convicted and sentenced me. He sitting with an advocate judges threatened me on the very first date of hearing to restrain my entry in high court except on the date fixed in the contempt case but as the second judge was not agree and so he could not pass the order but as the judge sitting on that also not agree and the order of suspension from practice could not be passed and so he managed the formation of bench with a third judge on the next date. He was a judge coming from district court. He agreed for passing the order of suspension and so the Petitioner was suspended from practice and his entry in the high court was banned. This happened as in place of the regular bench assigned the matters of criminal contempt as per the prevailing roaster, the chief justice nominated a bench headed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal.”
3. The petitioner has then proffered his suggestions about how the benches of this Court should be constituted. He suggests that the same principle should be followed in the High Court.
4. We must, at the outset, express our disapproval of the manner in which the petitioner has sought to cast aspersions on the bench of the Allahabad High Court which was assigned with the hearing of the contempt proceedings against the petitioner. What the petitioner has averred is not based or founded upon any
