In a landmark judgment underscoring the inviolability of judicial procedure, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that any court order passed in a case not authorized by the Chief Justice of a High Court is void. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal in Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 28399/2024), set aside a Calcutta High Court order dated September 4, 2024, for lack of jurisdiction. The case pitted Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (GRSE Ltd.) as the appellant against GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors. as respondents, spotlighting a procedural misstep that overrode the Chief Justice’s authority as the master of the roster.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a writ petition (WPA No. 13605 of 2016) filed by workers before the Calcutta High Court, seeking compassionate appointments from GRSE Ltd., a public sector undertaking, following the death of employees. Compassionate appointments are governed by specific policies aimed at supporting dependents, but GRSE Ltd. declined to extend such relief to the petitioners, prompting legal action.
On February 21, 2022, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court de-listed the writ petition, awaiting the Supreme Court’s resolution of a related reference in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019), despite the issue being clarified in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020). Unhappy with the delay, the petitioners filed an intra-court appeal (MAT No. 850 of 2022) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. On March 11, 2024, a Division Bench, with the consent of both parties, decided to hear the writ petition directly. This led to the impugned order of September 4, 2024, wherein the Division Bench directed GRSE Ltd. to appoint 48 of the 51 petitioners on compassionate grounds. GRSE Ltd. challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Division Bench lacked jurisdiction.
Important Legal Issues
The Supreme Court zeroed in on a pivotal question of judicial propriety: the authority of a court to adjudicate a matter not assigned to it by the Chief Justice. The key legal issues included:
- Jurisdictional Limits: Did the Division Bench have the authority to hear a writ petition that was neither referred by the Single Judge nor assigned by the Chief Justice under the High Court’s roster?
- Effect of Consent: Can the agreement of parties vest jurisdiction in a bench that lacks it under the law?
- Chief Justice’s Prerogative: Does bypassing the Chief Justice’s roster-setting power render a judicial order invalid?
Supreme Court’s Decision and Observations
The Supreme Court allowed GRSE Ltd.’s appeal, setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s order solely on jurisdictional grounds, without addressing the merits of the compassionate appointment dispute. The court remanded the writ petition to the Calcutta High Court, directing the Chief Justice to assign it to an appropriate bench for a fresh hearing, preferably within six months from February 25, 2025.
Key Observations
Unauthorized Orders are Void:
- The court ruled that orders passed in cases not allocated by the Chief Justice are legally untenable. It declared:
“An adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity.”
This stemmed from the finding that neither the predecessor Division Bench (March 11, 2024) nor the subsequent Division Bench (September 4, 2024) had the Chief Justice’s authorization to hear the writ petition, as per the roster.
Chief Justice’s Exclusive Authority:
- Reaffirming the Chief Justice’s role as the “master of the roster,” the court relied on precedents like Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal (1990), State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998), and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018). It observed:
“The Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster… such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court.”
The court found that the Division Bench’s actions contravened Rule 26 of the Calcutta High Court’s Writ Rules, which allows only a Single Judge to refer a matter to a Division Bench, absent Chief Justice’s directions.
Consent Cannot Override Law:
- Despite GRSE Ltd.’s counsel agreeing to the Division Bench hearing the case, the court held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. It stated:
“The well-settled principle that ‘consent does not confer jurisdiction’… A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court.”
Procedural Integrity:
- The court criticized the Division Bench for assuming jurisdiction based on its authority to hear appeals, when the roster explicitly assigned writ petitions under “Service (Group VI)” to Single Judges. It noted:
“On the face of such determination, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the writ petition.”
Directions Issued
- The writ petition was revived on the Calcutta High Court’s file for reconsideration.
- The court urged the Chief Justice to assign it to an appropriate bench, balancing the petitioners’ long wait with GRSE Ltd.’s stance.
- Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, senior counsel for GRSE Ltd., assured that no appointments would be made pending the High Court’s decision, alleviating the petitioners’ concerns.
