Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Reforms in Bench Formation and Case Allocation

The case of Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India & Ors. was a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer and self-proclaimed public-spirited individual, sought judicial directions regarding the constitution of benches in the Supreme Court and High Courts, particularly in Allahabad. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether such directions could be issued and whether the petitioner’s claims had any legal merit.

Background of the Case

The petitioner sought multiple reliefs, primarily concerning the procedure for constituting benches and allocating jurisdiction among different courts. The key demands included:

• The establishment of a set procedure for the constitution of benches in the Supreme Court.
• A rule specifying that a three-judge bench in the Chief Justice’s court should consist of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges, while a Constitution Bench should comprise the five senior-most judges or three senior-most judges along with two junior-most judges.
• Division of the Supreme Court into specialized branches such as:
• Supreme Criminal Court
• Supreme PIL Court
• Supreme Tax Court
• Supreme Service Court
• Supreme Land Dispute Court
• Supreme Miscellaneous Matter Court
• Similar reforms for the Allahabad High Court, where benches should be constituted with judges based on their backgrounds (e.g., advocate judges should not sit with district judiciary judges).

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner contended:

• That a structured and rule-based method for forming benches would ensure fairness and transparency.
• That allocating judges based on their background (e.g., separating advocate judges from district judiciary judges) would lead to better adjudication.
• That the Supreme Court, being the highest authority, must take steps to reform judicial administration for greater efficiency.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Supreme Court, represented by its registry and judicial officers, countered:

• That the power to constitute benches lies exclusively with the Chief Justice of India and is a matter of administrative prerogative.
• That the Supreme Court already has established rules under Article 145, which allow it to regulate its procedure without external interference.
• That the petitioner’s demand for separate courts (e.g., Supreme Criminal Court, Supreme Tax Court) was constitutionally unsound as the Supreme Court was designed as a single entity dealing with all matters.
• That questioning the assignment of judges from different backgrounds (advocates and district judges) was legally baseless, as all judges are constitutionally appointed and equally competent.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

1. Chief Justice’s Exclusive Authority in Bench Formation

The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to constitute benches and allocate cases is the sole prerogative of the Chief Justice. Citing State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, the Court reiterated:

“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.”

The Court further stated that the convention of the Chief Justice determining bench composition is not arbitrary but is based on well-established judicial norms and practical considerations.

2. No Constitutional Basis for Separate Supreme Court Divisions

The Court rejected the petitioner’s suggestion to divide the Supreme Court into specialized divisions, stating:

“The Supreme Court of India is a unified institution established under Article 124. Any attempt to divide it into specialized courts is inconsistent with the constitutional framework.”

The Court also pointed out that even within High Courts, judges frequently deal with diverse subjects to ensure a broad-based understanding of legal issues.

3. Judicial Backgrounds Do Not Affect Competency

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim that advocate judges should not sit with district judiciary judges. It reaffirmed:

“Every judge appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution discharges the same functions and possesses equal authority, irrespective of their professional background.”

The judgment warned against creating artificial distinctions among judges based on their career paths, as it could undermine judicial integrity and collegiality.

4. No Justification for a Mandamus on Supreme Court Rule-Making

The Court noted that Article 145 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to regulate its own procedure. Thus, it held:

“A mandamus cannot be issued directing the Supreme Court to frame rules in a particular manner. Such directions would amount to undue interference in judicial administration.”

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, concluding:

• The constitution of benches and case allocation remains the prerogative of the Chief Justice.
• No separate Supreme Court divisions can be created.
• Judicial backgrounds do not impact a judge’s ability to adjudicate cases.
• No external interference is permissible in Supreme Court rule-making.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Chief Justice has exclusive authority over bench formation and case allocation.
• The Supreme Court cannot be divided into separate courts based on subject matter.
• All judges, regardless of background, have equal authority to hear cases.
• No court can be directed to frame rules in a particular manner through a writ petition.
• Judicial institutions must be protected from baseless allegations and unfounded procedural challenges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the well-established principle that the judiciary functions independently and cannot be subject to arbitrary procedural restructuring. By rejecting the petitioner’s plea, the Court safeguarded its autonomy and ensured that bench constitution remains within the domain of the Chief Justice, as per constitutional convention and precedent.

Petitioner Name: Asok Pande.
Respondent Name: Supreme Court of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Supreme Court of India.
Judgment Date: 11-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Asok Pande vs Supreme Court of Ind Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category