Roster Notified By Chief Justice Binding On All Judges; No Bench Can Hear A Case Unless Assigned By CJ: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that a Bench, after releasing the case, is not competent to re-hear the case unless the case is assigned back to the Bench by the Chief Justice as the master of the roster.

Setting aside that part of the Bombay High Court's Bench order which granted bail to the accused despite the case being not assigned to the Bench, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan permitted the accused to file the application before the roster bench.

“No Bench can hear a case, unless as per the prevailing roster, the particular case is assigned to the Bench or that the case is specially assigned to the Bench by the Chief Justice.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka observed.

"Roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality. All Judges are bound by the same," the judgment added.

The aforesaid observation of the court came while hearing a criminal appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) against the grant of bail to the accused respondent.

The gist of the controversy involved in this case is that the criminal writ petition for quashing the complaint was moved by an accused before the High Court. The roster bench which was assigned to hear the application had heard the case and reserved the judgment on 21.04.2023. As noted by the Registrar General of the High Court, the roster of the Bench that heard the case of criminal writ petitions for quashing was only up to 04.06.2023 and the same roster was entrusted to another Bench with effect from 05.06.2023 till 20.08.2023.

On 26.06.2023, the old bench, despite being not the roster bench, granted bail to the respondent accused.

The relevant excerpts of the High Court's order is produced below for reference.

“We, therefore, direct that the judgment is dereserved and this petition now shall be heard afresh along with the other connected matters and decided together in accordance with law. Meanwhile, in order to strike balance between the competing rights of the prosecution and the petitioner/ accused person, we direct that the petitioner be released on interim bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, to be furnished before the Special Court dealing with the present ECIR.”

The grant of bail to the respondent accused was challenged by the ED before the Supreme Court.

Observation of the Court

At the outset, the Supreme Court expressed shock at the decision of the old bench granting bail to the respondent accused despite not being the roster bench. The court noted only the roster bench could have heard the case.

“What is shocking is that after releasing the case, when admittedly there was no prayer made by the first respondent for grant of bail on 26.06.2023, the Bench granted bail for releasing the first respondent. Even during the pendency of writ petition, bail was not granted to the first respondent though a prayer for interim relief of grant of bail was made in the petition. Even if such a prayer would have been made on 26.06.2023, the Bench could not have heard the prayer for bail. Only the roster Bench could have heard the same.”

Taking strong note of the High Court's old bench order, the court observed “that the moment the Bench directed that the case was released and it should be heard afresh, the propriety required that the Bench should not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another Bench on that day.”

All Judges Bound To Follow The Roster Notified by the Chief Justice

According to the court, once the roster is notified by the Chief Justice, then the cases assigned to the benches comprising of Judges have to be heard according to the roster.

“Roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality. All Judges are bound by the same. On 26.06.2023, after releasing the case which was heard two months back, the Bench has proceeded to grant bail without anyone praying for grant of bail. No Bench can hear a case, unless as per the prevailing roster, the particular case is assigned to the Bench or that the case is specially assigned to the Bench by the Chief Justice. Therefore, we set aside that part of the impugned order by which bail was granted.”, the court observed

Further, the court clarified that the order granting bail to the respondent accused is not set aside on merits, however, the court permitted the accused to move the roster Bench by filing an application for interim relief/grant of bail, which shall decide the application of the accused.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.