Allocation of cases unfettered right of Chief Justice, not subject to judicial review: Bombay High Court

No Bench can take up matters outside its roster without specific assignment by the Chief Justice (CJ) of the High Court, the Bombay High Court recently ruled, while emphasising that such administrative decision of the Chief Justice cannot be subject to judicial review..In a judgment which reaffirmed the master of roster powers of the CJ, a Bench of Justices GS Patel and Madhav Jamdar said that assignment of matters to Benches and deciding Bench composition is the prerogative of the CJ. “No reasons are required. It is for the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice alone to decide whether or not a particular matter or class of matters should be taken by a particular Bench and what the composition of that Bench should be,” the Court said..The Bench held that even if parties do not consent or the Bench does not indicate particular willingness, it is open for the CJ to assign matters to a particular bench in exercise of his discretion.“No Bench can on its own take up matters outside its roster without a specific assignment by the Chief Justice. To do so would be to act without jurisdiction. But this does not mean that the Chief Justice himself is constrained by the roster or by any directions in that roster,” the Court underscored..Further, CJ can deviate from the roster and assign a matter to any Bench.It went a step further to state that without the consent of parties and willingness of the judge, the Chief Justice could treat a matter as part heard and assign it to a Bench.The Chief Justice could simply assign it to any Bench and that assignment order is unassailable and cannot be subject to judicial review, the Bench said..The consideration arose from a petition filed by Aakar Infra Projects Private Ltd. which was finally heard and reserved for orders.The order, however, could not be pronounced in March 2020 due to the COVID pandemic and the consequent lockdown.Meanwhile, one of the respondents in the petition, Lata Chhabria, changed her advocate. The new counsel filed interim applications raising issues of maintainability of the petitions which they requested the Bench to hear first, before disposing of the petitions.However, the Bench noted that since the roster had changed, it would be appropriate for the next Bench, which was incidentally the Bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, to hear the matter. .On January 18 this year, CJ Datta indicated in a handwritten endorsement that the writ petition and all applications should be placed before the same Division Bench which passed the January 14 order.Post this, Chhabria filed an application to get the matter assigned to the regular Bench which was supposed to hear the matter as per the roster.However, Chhabria was informed that the application seeking transfer of petition had been rejected by the CJ by way of an order dated March 2, 2021, which was challenged in the present case..Through this petition, the petitioners sought directions to the Registrar General of the High Court, and the Prothonotary and Senior Master, to produce the papers and proceedings which led to the order of March 2..The Bench opined that as per its understanding, all administrative decisions are not equal and there could possibly be a class of administrative decisions which might allow judicial review.However, an order which does not determine any rights when exercised by a Chief Justice is not necessarily subject to judicial review, it said.“An order assigning a matter to a particular Bench does nothing at all on merits. It determines nothing except who should hear it. It is not a judgment. It is not a decree. It is simply a direction to have the matter heard and disposed of by this or that Bench nominated by the Chief Justice. It affects no rights, for no party has the right to say that his or her case must be heard by a particular Bench and none other,” the order stated.The Bench clarified that a party could only demand for a matter to be heard by a Bench, and not a particular Bench..“Every institution has to have confidence and trust in he or she who is the leader of that institution and his or her administrative capacities and decisions. We must trust our Chief Justices; and we do. That is all there is to it. If his authority in administrative matters of setting a roster is to be constantly called into question or sought to be restricted or trammelled because it suits a particular litigant to do so at a particular time, the entire administrative edifice would simply collapse,” the Bench said in conclusion..Advocates Vijay Kurle and Samkit Shah appeared for petitioners.Advocate SR Nargolkar appeared for the Registrar-General of the High Court, and the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court.Advocate Anuj Desai instructed by DM Legal appeared for Aakar.[Read Order]