2 Jan 2024 9:47 AM GMT
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:
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”.