The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Chief Justice is the “master of the roster” and holds the sole prerogative to constitute benches and assign cases. While hearing an appeal against a bail order, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti clarified that a judge cannot reject a plea to transfer a matter based on the roster or bench composition of another judge, as that power rests exclusively with the Chief Justice.
How the Issue Arose
The procedural clarification was made in the case of M/S Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Before the Delhi High Court, the appellant had requested that the petitions challenging the grant of bail be transferred to the same judge who had earlier dismissed the accused’s anticipatory bail applications.
The High Court rejected this request, recording the following reason in its order:
“The roster of the predecessor Judge has been changed. The Hon’ble Judge is today sitting in a Division Bench.”
Supreme Court’s Clarification on Court Procedure
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning for rejecting the plea was “not proper.” It used the opportunity to lay down the correct procedure for referring matters.
Chief Justice as the Sole Authority: The Court emphatically stated that the power to constitute benches and assign work is absolute and vests only in the Chief Justice. The judgment observed:
“It is not for any Court, while referring a matter to a co-ordinate Bench, to consider the composition in which that Bench is sitting, at the relevant time. That is the sole prerogative of the learned Chief Justice of the Court concerned, in whom, alone, rests and vests the power of constituting Benches, whether by way of a special order or in regular course.”
Role of the Registry: The Court further clarified that even if a judge passes an order to transfer a case, it cannot be implemented without the Chief Justice’s approval. The judgment directs:
“Even otherwise, de hors, whether or not an order of transfer is passed by any Judge other than the concerned Chief Justice, the Registry of that Court shall not give effect to the same, till suitable/appropriate orders are passed by the Chief Justice.”
A Judge’s Power to Refer: While establishing the supremacy of the Chief Justice’s authority, the Court also noted that its observations do not strip a judge of the discretion to refer a matter to a colleague who may have heard it earlier. However, such a reference is not final. The Court concluded, “The above observations do not take away a learned Judge’s power to refer the matter to the earlier Judge, if so warranted – subject to orders of the learned Chief Justice.”
