In a recent judicial appraisal, the Supreme Court laid down a firm directive emphasizing that the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice stands as the sole authority guiding the hearing schedules of all benches. This decree reiterates the court’s stance that no bench possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a case unless it has been duly assigned by the Chief Justice, who holds the mantle as the master of the roster.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, scrutinized a specific instance concerning the Bombay High Court’s bench order, which, despite lacking assignment by the Chief Justice, granted bail to an accused individual. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, comprising the bench, overturned this decision, permitting the accused to file their application before the rostered bench, as mandated by judicial protocol.
In a resounding affirmation, the court underscored that the roster, meticulously crafted and notified by the Chief Justice, carries substantial weight. It emphasized the binding nature of this roster, asserting that all judges are duty-bound to adhere to its dictates. The judgment elucidated that any bench’s jurisdiction to hear a case hinges solely upon its alignment with the prevailing roster or upon specific assignment by the Chief Justice.
This legal scrutiny unfolded during the adjudication of a criminal appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the bail granted to the respondent accused. The crux of the matter pertained to a criminal writ petition seeking to quash the complaint, wherein the bench hearing the application exceeded its jurisdiction by granting bail to the accused, despite not being the rostered bench at the time.
The court, expressing astonishment at the irregularity, condemned the previous bench’s decision to grant bail, emphasizing that such action contravened established judicial protocol. It reiterated that once a case is released, subsequent orders should refrain from delving into its merits, especially if the bench lacks jurisdiction as per the prevailing roster.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that while the order granting bail remains unscathed on its merits, the accused is directed to pursue their application for interim relief or bail before the appropriate rostered bench, adhering strictly to judicial protocol.
This case serves as a poignant reminder of the sanctity attached to the Chief Justice’s roster, which serves as the bedrock of judicial organization and ensures the equitable distribution of cases among benches. In upholding this principle, the Supreme Court reaffirms its commitment to procedural integrity and judicial decorum, safeguarding the sanctity of the legal process.
