The Supreme Court of India recently set aside a ruling by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. The apex court ruled that a bench hearing a case without proper authorization from the Chief Justice violates judicial propriety and lacks jurisdiction. This decision reinforces the principle that mere consent of the parties involved does not confer jurisdiction to a bench unauthorized by the Chief Justice.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around a dispute concerning compassionate appointments. The respondent had filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court after being denied a compassionate appointment. The Single Judge, instead of deciding the matter, chose to de-list the petition, awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on a related reference in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5 SCC 600.

Unhappy with this decision, the respondent preferred an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. Despite lacking authorization from the Chief Justice, the Division Bench proceeded to hear the case based on the consent of the parties involved and ruled in favor of the respondents, directing the appellant (Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited) to grant compassionate appointments.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Emphasizes Advocates' Duty to Appear and Participate in Hearings

Aggrieved by the Division Bench’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which ultimately set aside the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and reiterated the legal position 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 to hear the pending writ petition."

The Supreme Court relied on established precedents such as Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal AIR 1990 Calcutta 168, State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 196. These cases reaffirmed that any adjudication by a bench not assigned by the Chief Justice is a violation of judicial discipline.

The Supreme Court stressed that the Chief Justice, being primus inter pares (first among equals), has exclusive authority over the roster system. The court noted that neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the subsequent Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had the determination to hear the case. The roster set by the Chief Justice had allocated service-related writ petitions to Single Judges, thereby making the Division Bench’s decision unauthorized.

"An adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the master of the roster, has the power and authority to set the roster, which is final and binding on all the Companion Justices of the court."

Read Also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Legal Rights of South Korean Advocate in BCI Enrolment Case

Given the unauthorized nature of the Division Bench’s ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The matter was remanded back to the High Court, directing that the writ petition be assigned to an appropriate bench with proper authorization.

"We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal, as early as possible, but preferably within six months from today."

Furthermore, to prevent any interim complications, the Supreme Court recorded a commitment from the appellant’s counsel that no new appointments would be made pending the resolution of the case.

This ruling by the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that judicial discipline must be maintained at all levels of the judiciary. It affirms that:

• The Chief Justice is the final authority on the allocation of cases.
• Consent of parties does not grant jurisdiction where it does not legally exist.
• Any judicial pronouncement outside of authorized jurisdiction is void and non-binding.

This case serves as a crucial precedent in maintaining judicial discipline and ensuring that the roster system is strictly followed, preventing any unauthorized judicial intervention.

Case Title: GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED VERSUS GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS.