CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY  AND REFORMS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 331, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Matter referred to larger bench
Segment: Body
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 331 
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
A 
AND REFORMS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 169 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 
[DIPAKMISRA, CJI, R. K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA, 
AMITAVA ROY A.ND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Supreme Court: Allocation of cases - Composition of Benches 
C 
- There can be no doubt that on the judicial side the Chief Justice 
is the first amongst the equals, but as far as the roster is concerned, 
the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the 
prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases 
to the Benches so constituted - Neither a two-Judge Bench nor a 
three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct 
D 
the composition for constitution of a Bench - There cannot be any 
direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who slulll be sitting on 
the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the 
composition of the Bench -
Such an order cannot be passed -
Judicial discipline and decorum. 
· 
Administration of justice: Justice delivery system - No Judge 
can take up the matter on his own, unless allocated by the Chief 
Justice of India, as he is the master of the roster - In view of this, 
any order passed which is contrary to this order be treated as 
ineffective in law and not binding on the Chief Justice of India. 
State of Rajas than v. Prakash Chand and Others 
(1988) 1 SCC 1 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 1 - relied on. 
Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand and Others (2~08) 10 
SCC 1 : [2008] 15 SCR 331 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1997) 6 Suppl. SCR 1 
[2008) 15 SCR 331 
relied on 
referred to 
331 
Para3 
Para4 
E 
F 
G 
H
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Cr!.) 
No. 169 of 2017. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Prashant Bhushan, Adv for the Petitioner. 
B 
P. S. Narasimha, ASG, R.S. Suri, Ajit Sinha, P. P. Khuran, Ashok 
c 
D 
E 
Bhan, Aman Sinha, Anukul Pradhan, Sr. Advs, Gaurav Bhatia, Rahul 
Kaushik, Meenesh Dubey, Ms. Divya Roy, Umesh Babu C, Ms. Purnima 
. Johari, Ad vs for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
I. Today when the matter was listed before a two-Judge Bench, 
co1"11prising of Hon'ble Mr. Jt1stice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice 
Ashok Bhushan, the following order was passed:-
"Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel has brought to our notice 
order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P(Crl.) No.176/2017 referring 
the matter to the Constitution Bench. Let the matter be placed 
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders 
for listing this matter. 
Mr. R.S. Suri, senior advocate/President, Supreme Court Bar 
Association (SCBA) submits that SCBA also wants to get itself 
impleaded as a party respondent and render assistance. On an 
oral request of Mr. Suri, the prayer is allowed and the SCBA is 
impleaded as a party respondent." 
2. After perusal of the aforesaid order, it was thought appropriate 
F 
by the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench and, 
accordingly, the matter has been placed before us. 
3. It is submitted by Mr. P.S.
Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor 
General, Mr. R.S. Suri, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Mr. Ashok 
Bhan, learned senior counsel, Mr. Gaurav Bhatia and Mr. Gopal Singh, 
G 
learned counsel, along with other counsel that as per the judgment 
rendered by the three-Judge Bench in State ofRajastlum vs. Prakash 
Chand and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1, the Chief Justice of the High Court 
is the master of the roster and there is no justification not to treat the 
Chief Justice of India, who is the Chief Justice of the Apex Court, to 
H 
have the same power. If the same principles are not followed, the
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
333 
AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
institution cannot function. Our attention has also been drawn to Order 
A 
VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which reads as follows:-
"2. Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal or 
other proceeding, the Bench considers that the matter should be 
dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief 
Justice, who shall thereupon constitute constitute such a Bench 
B 
for the hearing of it." 
In Prakash Chand (supra), the Court stated thus:-
"From the preceding discussion the following broad 
CONCLUSIONS emerge. This, of course, is not to be treated as 
a summary of our judgment and the conclusion should be read 
C 
with the text of the judgment: 
( l) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the 
Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the 
first amongst the equals. 
(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone 
has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate 
cases to the benches so constituted. 
(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to 
them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. 
(4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, 
no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no 
Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench 
can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench
themselves 
and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and 
take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned 
to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice. 
*** 
*** 
*** 
D 
E 
F 
(6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pick and choose" any case 
pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or 
G 
themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief 
Justice. 
(7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry 
for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the 
directions given by the Chief Justice." 
H
334 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
4. Mr. Narasimha and Mr. Suri have also drawn our attention to 
the authority in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others (2008) 
10 sec I, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"In the present case the Bench of two learned Judges has, in 
terms, doubted the correctness of a decision of a Bench of three 
learned Judges. They have, therefore, referred the matter directly 
to a Bench of five Judges. In our view, judicial discipline and 
propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should 
follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if a 
Bench of two learned Judges concludes that an earlier judgment 
of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances 
can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the 
matter before it to a Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as 
has been done here, the reasons why it could not agree with the 
earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three learned Judges also 
comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of 
three learned Judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five 
learned Judges is justified." 
5. There can be no doubt that the ChiefJustice oflndia is the first 
amongst the equals, but definitely, he exercises certain administrative 
powers and that is why in Prakash Chand(supra), it has been clearly 
stated that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief
Justice alone. The same principle must apply proprio vigore as regards 
the power of the Chief Justice of India. On the judicial side, he is only 
the first amongst the equals. 
But, as far as the roster is concerned, as 
has been stated by the three-Judge Bench in Prakash Cfzand(supra), 
the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the 
prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to 
the Benches so constituted. 
6. The aforesaid position though stated as regards the High Court, 
we are absolutely certain that the said principle is applicable to the 
Supreme Court. We are disposed to think so. Unless such a position is 
clearly stated, there will be utter confusion. Be it noted, this has been 
also the convention of this Court, and the convention has been so because 
of the law. We have to make it clear without any kind of hesitation that 
the convention is followed because of the principles of law and because 
of judicial discipline and decorum. Once the Chief Justice is stated to be 
the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute 
Benches. Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition 
for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction 
to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or 
who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the 
Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be pas~ed. It is not 
countenanced in law and not permissible. 
7. An institution has to function within certain parameters and 
that is why there are precedents, rules and conventions. As far as the 
composition of Benches is concerned, we accept the principles stated in 
Prakash Qwnd(supra), which was stated in the context of the High 
Court, and clearly state that the same shall squarely apply to the Supreme 
Court and there cannot be any kind of command or order directing the 
Chief Justice oflndia to constitute a particular Bench. 
8. In this context, Mr. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor 
General has drawn our attention to Article 145(2) and (3) of the 
Constitution. The said provisions read as under:-
"145. Rules of Court, etc.-
(1) 
............ .. 
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (2), rules made under this 
article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for· 
any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges 
and Division Courts. 
(3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose 
of deciding any case involving a
substantial question of law as to 
the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing 
any reference under Article 143 shall be five: 
Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any 
of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of 
less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal 
the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question 
oflaw as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination 
of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court 
shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required 
by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such 
a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispos.e of the appeal 
in conformity with such opinion." 
335 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
336 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
9. The rules have been framed in that regard. True, the rules deal 
with reference, but the law laid down in Prakash Ownd (supra) has to 
apply to the Supreme Court so that there will be smooth functioning of 
the Court and there is no chaos in the administration of justice dispensation 
system. If any such order has been passed by any Bench, that cannot 
hold the field as that will be running counter to the order passed by the 
Constitution Bench. Needless to say, no Judge can take up the matter 
on his owri, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India, as he is the 
master of the roster. 
I 0. In view of the aforesaid, any order passed which is contrary 
to this order be treated as ineffective in law and not binding on the Chief 
Justice oflndia. 
11. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, on merits, the 
matter be listed before the appropriate Bench to be allocated by the 
Chief Justice oflndia. 
D 
12. List the matter after two weeks. 
Devika Gujral 
Mauer to be listed before appropriate Bench.