No person (except the Chief Justice of India) shall be a judge in his own cause

The Court of the Chief Justice of India was privy to a curious hearing on Monday this week.

A public interest litigation petition titled Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India & Ors was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud as item 11.

The petitioner, Asok Pande, a lawyer practicing at the Allahabad High Court, was praying for framing of rules to regulate the procedure for constitution of Benches in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

It was also Pande’s prayer that Constitution Benches constituted by the Supreme Court should be composed of the five senior-most judges, and that three-judge Benches must comprise the three senior-most judges.

Since the Supreme Court was the respondent in the matter, the recusal of the Chief Justice of India was anticipated. This is in deference to the well-established principle of natural justice “Nemo iudex in causa sua”, i.e. no person shall be a judge in his own cause.

It is usual practice in the Supreme Court for a CJI to recuse himself from cases in which the Supreme Court is the respondent, on the ground of conflict of interest, since the CJI is the administrative head of Supreme Court Registry.

Curiously, the Chief Justice did not recuse from the matter in question, but instead proceeded to hear the petitioner who appeared in-person.

The arguments lasted for less than five minutes. The mood of the Bench (to refuse to entertain the matter) seemed obvious during the course of the hearing, when the judges on the Bench posed questions to the petitioner.

Hence, it was expected that the petition would be dismissed in limine. However, the case got more curious as the Bench proceeded to “reserve judgment” in the matter.

The fact that no notice was issued to the respondents and the matter was heard only for less than five minutes, was quite unusual.

Subsequently, when the causelist for today was published yesterday on the Supreme Court website, the case was shown to be listed for judgment.

The judgment was pronounced today at 10.30 AM. In a 16-page verdict, the Court has asserted the power of the Chief Justice of India to oversee listing of matters, while stating that in the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative.

While what is stated in the judgment can be a matter of reasoned debate, the manner in which the matter was listed, heard and reserved for judgment leaves a lot to be desired.

“The entrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution, is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust”, the Court has stated in its judgment.

However, when the Chief Justice of India acts in violation of the most basic principle of natural justice, any observer will be compelled to venture into the arena of mistrust notwithstanding that the CJI is a repository of Constitutional trust and an institution in himself.

After all, the repository is only a creation of the document enacted by the people, for the people.