Summary
A Constitution Bench addressed competing listing directions in connected judicial-accountability proceedings. Extending Prakash Chand’s roster principles to the Supreme Court, it held that the Chief Justice alone constitutes Benches and allocates cases, declared contrary orders ineffective and left the writ petition’s merits to an appropriately allocated Bench.
Issues
- Who has authority to constitute Supreme Court Benches and allocate judicial work.
- Whether a smaller Bench can assign a matter to itself or prescribe another Bench’s composition.
- Whether the petition’s merits were decided.
Provisions considered
- OrderVI Rule2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013A Bench seeking larger-Bench consideration refers the matter to the Chief Justice, who constitutes the Bench. (¶¶ 3, 8–9)
- Article145(2)–(3), Constitution of IndiaCourt rules and minimum-Bench requirements operate with the Chief Justice’s roster authority; substantial constitutional-interpretation cases require the specified minimum strength. (¶ 8–9)
Held
- On the judicial side the Chief Justice is first among equals, but administrative roster authority belongs to that office. The Chief Justice alone constitutes Benches and allocates cases; the High Court principles stated in Prakash Chand apply to the Supreme Court. (¶ 5–7)
- Neither a two-judge nor a three-judge Bench may allocate a case to itself or direct a particular composition. No Judge may take up a matter absent allocation. Any order contrary to this Constitution Bench ruling is ineffective in law and does not bind the Chief Justice. (¶ 6–10)
- The writ petition’s merits remained undecided and were to be heard by an appropriate Bench allocated by the Chief Justice. (¶ 11–12)
Result
Contrary roster or composition orders declared ineffective and not binding on the Chief Justice. Writ petition directed to be listed after two weeks before an appropriately allocated Bench for consideration on merits.