New Delhi, April 27 (IANS) Attorney General K.K. Venugopal on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Chief Justice of India is the "master of roster" and he has full power to allocate cases and to maintain discipline.
Venugopal told a bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan that vesting case allocation with multi-member collegium instead of the Chief Justice would create multiple authority and result in "conflict and chaos".
The Attorney General said if all the judges of the apex court or collegium decide the allocation, then "each judge would express preference" and the judicial system would "collapse".
Citing many judgements to underline that the Chief Justice was the master of roster, he argued that if all judges or five-member collegium decide the allocation, "there will be conflict, there will be chaos if judges decide which case they should hear, which bench they should preside".
The court earlier sought Venugopal's assistance on a plea by former Law Minister and senior counsel Shanti Bhuhan, seeking that the allocation of "important and sensitive cases" be done by the collegium of five senior-most judges or full court and not by the Chief Justice alone.
The court reserved its verdict on the plea.
Venugopal said that the allotment of cases is not an exercise which should be taken by multiple persons.
"It is essential to be one person. If there has to be one person, it has to be Chief Justice. Chief Justice is the master of roster and he alone has the power."
Collegium is different, it deals with appointment of judges, the Attorney General said, adding: "Collegium decides who should be selected for elevation (of judges), there is no personal involvement. Here (in allotment of cases), there is personal involvement, like who should be presided over the bench, who should be in two-bench, three-bench judges..."
At the outset, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Shanti Bhushan, said "sensitive cases" like those which directly touch upon the very "survival of democracy" should not be left to the discretion of the Chief Justice.
"Fixing the matters and listing is very sensitive," he said, suggesting that to strengthen the institute, every matter should automatically, through computerised system, go to the concerned bench.
"There should be no human intervention by anyone. Important and sensitive cases should not be left to individuals," Dave added.
The advocate also asked what would be the purpose of computarised system if the CJI decides the allotment of cases and the apex court should decide a system to be followed to avoid any "possible arbitrariness".
"Cherry picking of the matters is not good for this institute," Dave said while recounting the cases that came up before certain benches of the top court in recent months, and about which "everybody talking about it".
"These are very sensitive matters, these have far reaching consequences that they can't be ignored. There is something grossly wrong," he contended.
Justice Sikri, however, said in almost all the high courts, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases come before the Chief Justice.
In his plea, Bhushan said the authority of the Chief Justice as a master of roster was not an "absolute, arbitrary, singular power" which may be exercised in his "sole discretion" and that the collective opinion of a collegium was much safer than the opinion of the Chief Justice alone.
It contended that the master of roster "cannot be unguided and unbridled discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the... Chief Justice of India by hand-picking benches of select judges or by assigning cases to particular judges".
Any such power or its exercise, the PIL said "would result in a subversion of democracy and the rule of law as guaranteed under the Constitution's Article 14".
