Breaking: Shanti Bhushan challenges Chief Justice of India’s power as Master of Roster

Senior Advocate and former Law Minister of India Shanti Bhushan has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to put a check on the powers of the Chief Justice of India as Master of Roster..In his petition, Bhushan seeks, inter alia, that the power to list matters be shared with the senior most judges of the Supreme Court, and that the Master of Roster power “cannot be unguided and unbridled discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India”..Highlighting the importance of the petition, Bhushan states,.“…the petition raises a very fundamental issue going to the root of the functioning of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as such is very critical to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and the Rule of Law in India.”.The petition goes on to state,.“This petition raises issue as to extremely disturbing trend of listing matters subjectively and selectively as clearly discernible from the available data of matters recently filed and listed before only certain Hon’ble Benches. This trend reflects serious erosion of independence of the judiciary, namely, this Hon’ble Court in deciding matters objectively and independently by resorting to the method of favoured listings. As a result, justice appears to be skewed and in many cases justice may even stand denied.”.It also claims that the manner in which politically sensitive matters are being listed before select judges is a violation of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Handbook of Practice and Procedure, 2017..“…by the Rules and the Procedure prescribed under Article 145, allocation of matters is now entirely through computer system and it is only in exceptional cases as provided in the said Rules and Handbook that the Hon’ble Chief Justice can direct specific allocation of a matter to a particular Bench. It is therefore imperative that the Registry Officials who are Respondents herein should act under the Constitution, be solely informed by Rule of Law and must be guided only by the Rules and Handbook of Procedure.”.The petition also enlists a number of politically sensitive cases in which there was “gross abuse of power” as regards listing. These include:.Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v UOI & Anr (Calling for CBI probe into Medical College bribery case)Common Cause v Union of India. (Involving a challenge to the appointment of the Special Director CBI)Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India. (The 2G case)Bandhuraj Sambhaji Lone Petitioner v.Union of India and Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (The Judge Loya death investigation case)Rohini Singh v State of Gujarat (The Wire defamation case).The manner by which these and other cases were listed is called into question by Bhushan..“…the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the other Respondents herein appear to be clearly interfering with listing of matters particularly politically sensitive matters as some of the examples set out hereinabove clearly show..It is submitted that such exercise of powers to list matters before particular Benches and/or deleting them from one Bench and placing them before another or to ensure that politically sensitive matters are listed only before certain Benches, are clear examples of malice in law since such listings are for collateral purposes and not for judicious purposes.”.With specific reference to the petition filed by CJAR in which the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25 lakh on the petitioners, the petition states,.“…it is pertinent to note that this judgement was passed in a case where the Chief Justice of India was himself involved since the case related to seeking a Special Investigation into a CBI FIR in the alleged conspiracy to pay bribes for procuring favourable orders in a matter pending before this Hon’ble Court and that too pending before the Bench presided by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India himself..The Chief Justice of India could not have heard this case himself quite apart from exercising his power as master of roster in allocating a bench to hear this case and constituting a Constitution Bench that finally pronounced the order declaring the Chief Justice of India as master of roster. The principle of master of roster cannot be applicable to a case where the Chief Justice of India is himself involved.”.It goes on to highlight how all matters in the roster under the classification Letter Petitions and PIL matters have been listed only before the Chief Justice..Therefore, it is prayed that the Supreme Court issue a writ declaring that listing of matters must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, subject to the following clarification:.The words ‘Chief Justice of India’ must be deemed to mean a collegium of 5 senior judges of this Hon’ble Court..Further, it also sought that consultation by the Registry Officials for listing purposes with the Chief Justice of India must include consultation with senior-most judges of the Court..It is also prayed that the Chief Justice of India be prevented from listing any matter contrary to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure..Read petition:.Read letter to Secretary General: