A.K.Sikri, J. - (1.) The name of respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of parties, inasmuch as, having regard to the nature of submissions made during hearing, which would be taken note of at the appropriate place, respondent No.2 is not a necessary party.
(2.) The petitioner herein, who is a senior advocate practicing in this Court and enjoys credible reputation in the profession as well as in public, has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In this writ petition, he seeks this Court to clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India (for short, the 'Chief Justice') as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases.
(3.) It may be mentioned at the outset that the petition acknowledges and accepts the legal principles that the Chief Justice is the "Master of Roster" and has the authority to allocate the cases to different Benches/Judges of the Supreme Court. It is also conceded that adherence to this principle, namely, the Chief Justice is the Master of Roster, is essentially to maintain judicial discipline and decorum. It is also stated that the Chief Justice is first among equals, meaning thereby all Judges of the Supreme Court are equal with same judicial power, with Chief Justice as the senior most Judge. At the same time, it is contended that this power is not to be used to assert any superior authority by the Chief Justice and the power is to be exercised in a manner that is fair, just and transparent. As the Master of Roster, it is also conceded that it is the Chief Justice who has to decide as to which Bench will hear a particular case. The apprehension expressed is that keeping in view the predisposition of particular Judges, the Chief Justice may assign cases to those Judges to achieve a predetermined outcome. This calls for, according to the petitioner, devising a more rational and transparent system of listing and re-allocation of the matters to avoid any such possibilities. As per the petitioner, the matters need to be listed by strictly following the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). These Rules, no doubt, empower the Chief Justice to allocate certain cases by exercising his discretionary power. The petitioner submits that in order to ensure that such a discretion is exercised in a fair manner, the expression 'Chief Justice' should be interpreted to mean 'Collegium' of first five Judges of the Supreme Court, as held by this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Others v. Union of India, 1993 4 SCC 441 (famously known as the "Second Judges' case"). On the aforesaid edifice, the petitioner has prayed for the following directions: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration or a writ in the nature of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding and 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: i) The words 'Chief Justice of India' must be deemed to mean a collegium of 5 senior judges of this Hon'ble Court. (b) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration of a writ in the nature of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the consultation by the Registry Officials for listing purposes, if any with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India must include consultation with such number of senior-most judges as this Hon'ble court may fix in the interest of justice. (c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and concerned respondents from listing any matter contrary to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure or picking and choosing Benches for the purpose of listing contrary thereto, with the above modification of replacing 'Chief Justice of India' with the collegium of 5 senior most judges of this Hon'ble Court. (d) That this Hon'ble Court may Clarify that when matters are mentioned for urgent hearing/listing, only a date/time of hearing would be fixed but the Bench to hear the matter would be determined in accordance with the Rules. (e) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and as may be required in the interests of justice.";