HC Bench Cannot Hear Case Without Chief Justice's Authorisation Merely Based On Consent Of Parties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment, emphasizing that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and that any bench hearing a case without the Chief Justice's authorization violates judicial propriety. The Court noted that the High Court's Division Bench lacked jurisdiction under the roster but proceeded based solely on the parties' consent.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal heard the case concerning a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment, which entertained an intra-court appeal against a Single Bench's order to de-list a writ petition. The hearing proceeded based on the parties' consent, despite lacking authorization from the Chief Justice.

The matter relates to a compassionate appointment, where the Respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the Single Bench of the High Court. Against the Single Bench's decision to de-list the Writ Petition, the Respondent preferred an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. Based on the consent of the parties, the Division Bench heard the petition and granted relief in their favour directing the Appellant to grant compassionate appointments to the Respondents.

Being aggrieved by the Division Bench judgment, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the Division Bench decision, the Court observed that the High Court erred in passing a direction in an intra-court appeal despite no authorization given by the Chief Justice to hear the case. It noted that the Division Bench's assumption of jurisdiction to hear the writ petition directly was without authority and in violation of the roster system.

Referencing Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal AIR 1990 Calcutta 168, State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 196, the Court said that any adjudication of a matter by a bench not assigned by the Chief Justice, as the master of roster is violative of judicial discipline.

“The Single Judge not having referred the writ petition to a bench of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench was not quite correct in accepting the suggestion of the parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition without having any authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf, and more particularly bearing in mind the well-settled principle that 'consent does not confer jurisdiction'. A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition. As a sequitur, the Division Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order dated March 11, 2024.”, the Court observed.

“In other words, an adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all the 'Companion Justices' of the said court. Plainly, therefore, the order dated March 11, 2024 and the impugned order are without jurisdiction.”, the court added.

Resultantly, the Court allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to the High Court to be restored to its case files.

“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal, as early as possible, but preferably within six months from today, considering that the respondents have been waiting for their turn for compassionate appointment and the appellants have their own reasons for not proceeding with making such appointment resulting in a delayed determination.”, the court ordered.

Case Title: GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED VERSUS GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Adv. Mr. Yati Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Akash Dixit, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR