Qatar- SC dismisses petition on guidelines for case allocation

(MENAFN- Gulf Times) The Supreme Court said yesterday its chief justice was the highest authority on the court and could not be distrusted, dismissing a lawyer's petition for guidelines to be drafted on the transparent allocation of cases to judges.
Lawyer Asok Pande filed the petition soon after four most senior Supreme Court judges, at an unprecedented press briefing on January 12, accused Chief Justice Deepak Misra of selectively allocating cases.
The judges at the briefing did not mention any particular case, but it was understood that they were referring to allocation of certain politically-sensitive cases to selected benches.
The chief justice is the 'master of the roster and decides allocation of cases to various benches, the court ruled yesterday.
A bench of Misra, Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said that for securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard of personal liberty, there could not be 'a presumption of mistrust of the chief justice. The oath of office demands nothing less.
The chief justice was the first among equals and an institution in himself, the judgment said.
The top court said it was the 'prerogative of the chief justice to constitute the benches and allocate cases and that authority can't be regulated on the mere apprehension of being exercised arbitrarily.
It dismissed the petition, saying some of its 'averments were 'scandalous.
Pande had asked, among other things, that the chief justice consult two most senior judges while allocating work, and that benches hearing constitutional matters should comprise of five senior most judges.
'As a repository of constitutional trust, the chief justice is an institution in himself. The authority which is conferred upon the chief justice, it must be remembered, is vested in a high constitutional functionary, Justice Chandrachud said.
The 'ultimate purpose behind giving the CJI this authority is to ensure that the court is 'able to fulfil and discharge the constitutional obligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence.
The lawyer's appeal was 'manifestly misconceived and 'contrary to legal and constitutional principle, the court said, adding, 'there is no constitutional foundation on the basis of which such a suggestion can be accepted.
Noting that the petitioner 'harbours a misconception that certain categories of cases or certain courts must consist only of the most senior in order of their appointment, the judgment said: 'Every Judge appointed to this court under Article 124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of adjudicating cases which come to the court and are assigned by the chief justice.
Pointing out that the judges appointed to Supreme Court either upon elevation from the high court or directly from the bar possess 'wide and diverse experience which they gather during the course of their service or practice as lawyers, the court said: 'To suggest that any judge would be more capable of deciding particular cases or that certain categories of cases should be assigned only to the senior-most among the judges of the Supreme Court has no foundation in principle or precedent.
It is a settled position that a judgment delivered by a judge speaks for the court (except in the case of a concurring or dissenting opinion), the court said.
Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgement for the bench, referred to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and said they were notified with the approval of the President.
'Rule 1 indicates that it is the chief justice who is to nominate the judges who would constitute a bench to hear a cause, appeal or matter. Where a reference has been made to a larger bench, the bench making the reference is required to refer the matter to the chief justice who will constitute a Bench, the judgement said.
The court also referred to a recent five-judge bench verdict that had set aside an order passed by a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar ordering setting up of a larger bench, comprising five most senior judges, to hear a petition of NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms relating to an alleged medical admission scam.
It was held that once the chief justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone had the prerogative to constitute benches and neither a two-Judge, nor a three-Judge bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the constitution of a bench.
Prior to their January press conference, Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph had released a letter written to Misra alleging 'selective assignment of cases to preferred judges and that 'sensitive cases were being allotted to junior judges.

MENAFN1104201800670000ID1096724089