“Take it in your stride”: CJI Khanna agency on administrative itemizing selections

Addressing attorneys looking for dates for his or her circumstances throughout a crowded court docket session, justice Khanna remarked: “We won’t permit oral mentioning. All emails are reviewed, and selections on itemizing are taken accordingly. Some requests are allowed, and a few are rejected. Take it in your stride.”

Regardless of attorneys’ diversified requests, the CJI remained resolute, emphasising that the allocation of circumstances and benches can be determined solely on the executive facet, in accordance with established practices. Because the grasp of the roster, the CJI holds the unique authority to assign circumstances and kind benches, a accountability vested in him as the executive head of the judiciary.

To make certain, the difficulty of case itemizing and perceived preferential therapy within the task of issues has been a recurring flashpoint within the Supreme Courtroom, marring the tenures of a number of CJIs.

Justice Khanna’s predecessor, justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, additionally confronted criticism throughout his tenure when famous attorneys, together with Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan, alleged arbitrary modifications within the itemizing of choose circumstances. In response, justice Chandrachud had defended the judiciary in December 2023, stating: “All judges are to be handled as equal on the judicial facet. It’s shocking that some attorneys need their circumstances listed earlier than particular judges.”

Additionally Learn: A Pandora’s field that the Supreme Courtroom has opened

In February 2023 as nicely, the Supreme Courtroom administration handled allegations regarding inconsistent task of circumstances in a matter involving Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji. Related complaints had surfaced in the course of the phrases of different CJIs, every elevating questions concerning the discretionary nature of itemizing processes. At the moment too, justice Chandrachud maintained that whereas it’s straightforward for attorneys to be irresponsible in making allegations in opposition to the Supreme Courtroom administration, the judges are certain by self-discipline and laid down norms.

One of the dramatic episodes within the historical past of the Supreme Courtroom’s functioning unfolded in January 2018, when 4 most senior judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an unprecedented press convention accusing then CJI Dipak Misra of selectively assigning politically delicate circumstances to most well-liked benches.

The speedy set off for the press briefing was Justice Chelameswar’s November 2017 order, which directed the itemizing of a case associated to a medical admissions rip-off earlier than a bench of the 5 most senior judges. This resolution was promptly overturned by CJI Misra, who constituted a five-judge bench to reaffirm his sole authority because the grasp of the roster.

In subsequent rulings in April and July 2018, the Supreme Courtroom upheld the precept that solely the CJI might allocate circumstances and represent benches. A plea by former regulation minister Shanti Bhushan, advocating session with collegium members on case allocation, was additionally rejected throughout this era.

In keeping with the present itemizing guidelines, circumstances are assigned to judges primarily based on their roster as decided by the CJI. The rule goals to make sure that a case follows a decide reasonably than a bench, sustaining consistency and avoiding perceptions of bias.

The controversy surrounding case allocation displays the advanced steadiness the judiciary should strike between transparency and effectivity. Whereas justice Khanna’s agency stance on oral mentions indicators his intent to take care of a structured and neutral course of for itemizing circumstances, his strategy to the grasp of the roster’s tasks can be intently watched, given the sensitivity of the position in a system the place each resolution is scrutinised below the lens of accountability and equity.