Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Thursday firmly discouraged oral mentions for case listings within the Supreme Court docket, urging attorneys to respect selections made by him in his administrative capability because the “grasp of the roster”.
Addressing attorneys in search of dates for his or her circumstances throughout a crowded court docket session, justice Khanna remarked: “We won’t permit oral mentioning. All emails are reviewed, and selections on itemizing are taken accordingly. Some requests are allowed, and a few are rejected. Take it in your stride.”
Regardless of attorneys’ various requests, the CJI remained resolute, emphasising that the allocation of circumstances and benches could be determined solely on the executive aspect, in accordance with established practices. Because the grasp of the roster, the CJI holds the unique authority to assign circumstances and kind benches, a duty vested in him as the executive head of the judiciary.
To make certain, the difficulty of case itemizing and perceived preferential therapy within the project of issues has been a recurring flashpoint within the Supreme Court docket, marring the tenures of a number of CJIs.
Justice Khanna’s predecessor, justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, additionally confronted criticism throughout his tenure when famous attorneys, together with Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan, alleged arbitrary modifications within the itemizing of choose circumstances. In response, justice Chandrachud had defended the judiciary in December 2023, stating: “All judges are to be handled as equal on the judicial aspect. It’s stunning that some attorneys need their circumstances listed earlier than particular judges.”
Additionally Learn: A Pandora’s field that the Supreme Court docket has opened
In February 2023 as properly, the Supreme Court docket administration handled allegations regarding inconsistent project of circumstances in a matter involving Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji. Related complaints had surfaced through the phrases of different CJIs, every elevating questions in regards to the discretionary nature of itemizing processes. At the moment too, justice Chandrachud maintained that whereas it’s straightforward for attorneys to be irresponsible in making allegations in opposition to the Supreme Court docket administration, the judges are certain by self-discipline and laid down norms.
Some of the dramatic episodes within the historical past of the Supreme Court docket’s functioning unfolded in January 2018, when 4 most senior judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an unprecedented press convention accusing then CJI Dipak Misra of selectively assigning politically delicate circumstances to most well-liked benches.
The instant set off for the press briefing was Justice Chelameswar’s November 2017 order, which directed the itemizing of a case associated to a medical admissions rip-off earlier than a bench of the 5 most senior judges. This resolution was promptly overturned by CJI Misra, who constituted a five-judge bench to reaffirm his sole authority because the grasp of the roster.
In subsequent rulings in April and July 2018, the Supreme Court docket upheld the precept that solely the CJI may allocate circumstances and represent benches. A plea by former regulation minister Shanti Bhushan, advocating session with collegium members on case allocation, was additionally rejected throughout this era.
In response to the present itemizing guidelines, circumstances are assigned to judges primarily based on their roster as decided by the CJI. The rule goals to make sure that a case follows a decide quite than a bench, sustaining consistency and avoiding perceptions of bias.
The controversy surrounding case allocation displays the complicated stability the judiciary should strike between transparency and effectivity. Whereas justice Khanna’s agency stance on oral mentions alerts his intent to keep up a structured and neutral course of for itemizing circumstances, his method to the grasp of the roster’s tasks can be carefully watched, given the sensitivity of the function in a system the place each resolution is scrutinised below the lens of accountability and equity.
