A view of the Supreme Court of India. , Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
RRecently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in Ritu Chhabria Vs. Union of India, Affirmed the right of an undertrial to be released on default bail in case the investigation remains incomplete and extends beyond the statutory time limit. It drew flak from the practice of the investigating agencies filing charge sheets against an accused despite the investigation not being completed. It was held that the right to be released on bail would not be extinguished merely by the filing of the preliminary charge sheet. It was concluded that an accused’s right to seek default bail would be lost only on the competition of the investigation within the statutory time limit.
an extraordinary decision
Subsequently, in a surprising turn of events, the court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) considered a recall application filed by the Union of India against this decision. It then passed an interim order directing the courts to decide the bail applications without relying on the settled judgments Ritu Chhabria For a short time. In short, by overriding the Bench’s judgment of its precedential value, even if only for a short period of time, the CJI’s court indirectly stayed the judgment despite having no connection with the judgment.
Ordinarily, the only recourse available to the Union of India was to file a review petition, which is usually decided by the same bench. There was no scope for a review petition being considered by the CJI’s court. The only way for the CJI to enter the courtroom would be to seize another coordinate bench in some other matter. isolated caseExpressing his disagreement with the ratio prescribed in Ritu Chhabria And sent it to the CJI for the recommendation of a larger bench. There was no scope for filing a recall petition against a judgement, that too before a completely different bench. Doing this is akin to bench fishing or forum shopping. Therefore, by considering an intra-court appeal within the Supreme Court as an additional mechanism against an order passed by a Bench, in which the CJI was not involved, the CJI’s Court has effectively set up a mechanism that would override any legislative Or completely devoid of constitutional. Support.
first among equals
Within the constitutional scheme of things, all judges of the Supreme Court are equal in terms of their judicial powers. However, the CJI enjoys special administrative powers such as constituting benches and referring cases and references for reconsideration to a larger bench. CJI is known as ‘Master of Roster’. That is why he is considered ‘first among equals’ in relation to fellow judges. But in any bench including the CJI, the vote or power given to the CJI is the same as that given to his fellow judges. History is replete with examples of CJIs authoring the minority opinion of the Court. The most recent such order was passed by the Supreme Court in the Economic Weaker Sections quota controversy, where the then CJI, Justice UU Lalit, along with Justice S. Wrote the minority opinion of the court with Ravindra Bhat. This system exists in most Commonwealth countries such as the UK, Australia and Canada. And the countries that do not, such as the US, instead have a system where all judges collectively exercise power and deliver judgments because they sit in a bloc. Thus, they represent the collective power of the Court and not the Benches as is the case in India. In India, the validity of the power of the Master of Roster has been hotly debated, and has, from time to time, been affirmed to the extent of administrative decisions for the smooth functioning of the Court. The present order of the CJI does not by any stretch of the imagination fall within the powers envisaged under the ‘Master of Roster’ system. It is ironical that the judgment which insisted on following the statutory procedure for investigation and bail was effectively nullified by a dubious procedure, completely alien to both the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules. Is. The interim order raises concerns because, in the near future, if the government is unhappy with a bench’s order, it can go to the CJI and strip away all legal sanctity instead of asking the same bench to explain again. A review.
cause for concern
Despite the administrative utility of the ‘Master of the Roster’ system, the many recorded cases of abuse are cause for concern. Just five years ago, four senior judges of the Supreme Court alleged serious lapses and irregularities in administration and referred cases to the Court’s benches. Being the master of the roster, the powers vested in the CJI are infinite. It is impractical to place any limit on these powers for the smooth administrative functioning of the Court. It is imperative that the CJI himself refrains from exaggerating his powers as Master of Roster; The practice of constitution of benches and allocation of cases should be fully computerized and kept out of the hands of the CJI.
The CJI’s powers as master of the roster are only for taking administrative decisions. The order has the effect of enhancing the powers of the CJI on the judicial side and creating an unprecedented inter-court appellate mechanism within the Supreme Court, in total disregard of the established procedure, which is a review petition. The instant order has also dulled the bright line preventing the CJI’s court from assuming that it is superior to all other benches.