Allocation Of Cases Can't Be Lawyer-Driven; Complete Trust Must Be Reposed On Decision Makers : CJI DY Chandrachud

Recently in an interview, while replying to a question about the recent controversy surrounding the listing of some of the politically sensitive cases to a particular Bench, the Chief Justice of India responded that “the Supreme Court follows a well-structured process for the allocation of cases to the Judges of the Supreme Court”. 

Refuting all such allegations, CJI told the Press Trust of India, “The credibility of the Supreme Court shall be maintained by the processes and proceedings followed by the Supreme Court. Allocation and assignment of cases cannot be a lawyer-driven exercise, and a complete trust must be reposed on the decision-makers.”

Recently, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, in letters addressed to the CJI and the Supreme Court's Registry, took objection to the modus operandi of allocation of certain politically sensitive matters to a particular bench of Judges, allegedly ignoring the established convention and practices as per the Supreme Court's Handbook on Practice and Office Procedure, 2017.

In the interview given to the PTI, the Chief Justice explained the assigning of matters to a Judge of the Supreme Court in the following points:

1. Roster: CJI said that “every case to be assigned to a Judge of the Supreme Court is decided by virtue of a Roster, which assigns a case according to a subject matter that is uploaded on the Supreme Court's Website and can be accessed by anyone.”

2. Judge is a Judge: Every Judge of the Supreme Court is a Judge in itself, meaning thereby, the Judge is entitled to decide the case assigned by the CJI according to the Roster.

3. No Role of Lawyer in Assignment of Cases: Pointed out that he is a member of the Bar, CJI said, "no lawyer can insist that a particular case shall be decided by a particular Judge, as the purity of the administration of justice would suffer if the allocation of cases would be a lawyer-driven exercise.”

4. Re-assignment according to Roster: CJI again said that the cases are assigned by the CJI according to the Roster. He further said “If suppose a Judge recuses from a particular matter or is not available to take the matter, then the case will be re-assigned by the CJI to a Senior Judge or a Junior Judge, and once the case is assigned to a particular Judge, that case follows the Judge.”

In a letter addressed to Registrar (Listing) of Supreme Court, Mr. Bhushan expressed concerns over assigning of specific cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to the bench presided over by Justice Bela M. Trivedi which were initially listed before a Bench led by Justice Chandrachud. Bhushan also sought reasons for the deletion of the judges' appointment matter from Justice SK Kaul's bench, despite a specific judicial order for posting.

Furthermore, Mr. Dave in an open letter to the CJI, expressed anguish over a number of cases listed before various Benches upon first listing and/ or in which notice have been issued, being taken away from those  Benches and listed before other  Benches. Despite the first coram being available, the matters are being listed before  Benches in which the second coram presides, Dave complained.

Last month, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi also questioned the change in the combination of the Bench hearing former Delhi Health Minister Satyendra Jain's Bail Application, to which CJI responded :  “It's very easy to fling allegations and letters. There is a communication from the office of Justice Bopanna. Due to medical reasons, he didn't resume duties after Diwali. He stated that all matters which were heard by him should be kept as “de-part heard”. Therefore, this matter was assigned to Justice Trivedi, who had last heard the matter. The reason why Justice Trivedi has to hear the matter is that there is an application for an extension of interim bail. I thought I will clarify it but find it surprising for any member of the bar to say that I want this particular judge to take up the case”.