STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This is an unusual case. The observations, comments and allegations made and the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Mr. Justice Shethna, in relation to a disposed of writ petition, by sending for its record in a totally unrelated and unconnected criminal revision petition, which have been put in issue in this appeal, touch not only upon the discipline of the High Court and the powers of the Chief Justice to assign cases and allot Benches but also the larger issue of judicial propriety. The order directing issuance of notice of contempt to the Chief Justice of the High Court raises a fundamental question about the jurisdiction of a single Judge to issue such a notice in the established facts of the case. It is not individuals but the prestige of the Institution which is at stake in this case. The mAnner in which "allegations" have been made against the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court which had disposed of the writ petition and some of the former Chief Justices of the Rajasthan High Court, including the present Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice J. S. Verma, has caused us much anguish. We wish we did not have to deal with a case like this but we shall be singularly failing in our duties to the Institution, if we do not deal with the matter and take it to its logical conclusion. First, some salient facts :

(3.) A Criminal Revision Petition No. 357 of 1997 was filed by one Prakash Chand, Respondent 1, herein challenging his conviction and sentence for an offence under Sec. 304-A I.P.C. This petition, as per the roster, was listed for admission and bail before Shethna, J. on 3-9-1997. It appears that preliminary hearing of the petition did not conclude on that date and the learned Judge directed that the revision petition be listed before him "along with other part-heard" cases on 5-9-1997, even though as per the change of the roster, he could not take up single Bench matters on 5-9-1997, since he was to sit in a Division Bench on that date. Shethna, J. directed the Registry to list those cases "on a separate Board". Since the Registry could not create a "separate board" for Shethna, J., without obtaining directions from the Chief Justice, the matter was placed for orders before the Chief Justice on 3-9-1997 itself. The Chief Justice directed :-