Summary
The Supreme Court declined to replace the Chief Justice’s authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases with a collegium or the full Court. Both opinions distinguished roster administration from the judicial-appointment collegium and affirmed compliance with the Supreme Court Rules and procedural handbook. The petition was disposed of without further directions.
Issues
- Whether the Chief Justice’s roster powers should instead be exercised by a collegium or the full Court.
Provisions considered
- Article 145, Constitution of IndiaRule-making for Court practice and procedure supports the rules assigning Bench nomination to the Chief Justice; absence of a separate express constitutional roster provision does not negate that authority. (¶¶ Sikri J.,17, Sikri J.,23, Sikri J.,26, Bhushan J.,12, Bhushan J.,27, Bhushan J.,30, Bhushan J.,31, Bhushan J.,34)
- Order VI Rules 1 and 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Chief Justice nominates Benches and constitutes larger Benches upon reference; Chief Justice cannot be read as a collegium for these purposes. (¶¶ Sikri J.,17, Sikri J.,20, Sikri J.,26, Sikri J.,41, Bhushan J.,12, Bhushan J.,27, Bhushan J.,28)
- Article 124(2), Constitution of IndiaAppointment-related consultation and the collegium interpretation were distinguished from daily roster administration. (¶¶ Sikri J.,26, Sikri J.,27, Sikri J.,28, Bhushan J.,21, Bhushan J.,25, Bhushan J.,26, Bhushan J.,27)
Held
- Both opinions held that the Chief Justice in his individual institutional capacity is master of the roster. Binding precedent and the Court’s rules vest constitution of Benches and allocation of cases in him, rather than a collegium or the full Court. (¶¶ Sikri J.,13, Sikri J.,14, Sikri J.,20, Sikri J.,26, Sikri J.,41, Bhushan J.,20, Bhushan J.,27, Bhushan J.,28, Bhushan J.,34)
- The collegium arose from the constitutional scheme of consultation for appointments. Its rationale cannot be transferred to daily roster administration, for which collective assignment would create practical difficulties. (¶¶ Sikri J.,26, Sikri J.,27, Sikri J.,28, Bhushan J.,25, Bhushan J.,26, Bhushan J.,27, Bhushan J.,28)
- Sikri J. distinguished administrative leadership from equal judicial authority: once assigned a case, the Bench exercises its judicial function independently, without interference from the Chief Justice. (¶¶ Sikri J.,21, Sikri J.,22, Sikri J.,24, Sikri J.,25)
- Both opinions required listing and allocation in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules and established procedures. The handbook provides guidance and criteria; the Court did not adjudicate the validity of the particular earlier judgments mentioned by the petitioner. (¶¶ Sikri J.,4, Sikri J.,40, Bhushan J.,35, Bhushan J.,37, Bhushan J.,39, Bhushan J.,40)
- Foreign court systems could not be mechanically imported into India’s constitutional and procedural framework. Both opinions recognised continuing institutional improvement without granting the requested restructuring. (¶¶ Sikri J.,38, Sikri J.,39, Sikri J.,41, Sikri J.,43, Bhushan J.,38, Bhushan J.,41, Bhushan J.,43)
Result
Writ petition disposed of with observations and without further directions. Request to read Chief Justice as a collegium for roster purposes, or transfer allocation to the full Court, rejected.