Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking compulsory rules for bench composition, seniority-based benches and separate subject divisions. The Chief Justice has the exclusive prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases, and mandamus could not compel the requested rule-making. Neither seniority nor elevation from the Bar rather than the district judiciary created the proposed distinction in judges’ authority. The Court disapproved scandalous allegations concerning earlier High Court proceedings and cautioned the petitioner about future pleadings.
Issues
- Whether mandamus could compel the proposed rules governing bench composition and subject divisions.
- Whether seniority or the route of appointment justified restricting which judges could sit together or hear particular cases.
- Whether the Article 32 petition could challenge the conduct of earlier High Court judicial proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Article 145, Constitution of IndiaThe constitutional rule-making power and the rules made under it governed practice and procedure; mandamus could not require making rules in the particular form demanded. (¶¶ 6, 11)
- Order VI rules 1, 2 and 4, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The quoted rules entrust nomination of judges and constitution of larger benches to the Chief Justice. They supported rejection of compulsory bench compositions sought by the petitioner. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- The Chief Justice is master of the roster, with the exclusive prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases. The requested mandamus for specified rule-making, fixed compositions or separate divisions had no legal foundation. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 15)
- Every Supreme Court Judge bears the duty to hear assigned cases; seniority does not confer exclusive competence over categories of litigation. High Court judges appointed from the Bar and those elevated from judicial office discharge the same functions, making the proposed distinction constitutionally untenable. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Roster preparation involves institutional needs, workload, arrears, judicial strengths and other practical considerations. The Court rejected rigid prescriptions founded on presumed mistrust of the Chief Justice’s exercise of constitutional responsibility. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The legality of the earlier High Court judicial order could not be questioned through this original Article 32 proceeding. The Court disapproved the unsupported allegations but let the matter rest with a caution to draft future pleadings responsibly. (¶¶ 4, 16, 17)
Result
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner cautioned to exercise greater responsibility in future pleadings; no contempt punishment was imposed in this judgment.