Top Lawyers Question Changes in Supreme Court Case Assignments
Politically Sensitive Cases Being Sent to One Judge, They Say
Newsreel Asia Insight #67
Dec. 8, 2023
An analysis of eight politically sensitive cases in the Supreme Court of India reveals a pattern that deviates from established norms and practices, according to the media outlet Article 14.
These cases, ranging from political activists’ bail pleas to challenges against the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), have been inexplicably reassigned to the bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi, a relatively junior judge in the Supreme Court hierarchy and who was law secretary under Narendra Modi’s tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister.
As per the Supreme Court’s guidelines, cases should generally remain with the senior judge initially presiding over them.
The “master of the roster” system vests the Chief Justice of India with the authority to allocate cases. The rationale behind this system is to maintain an orderly and efficient functioning of the court. It allows for the management of the court’s workload and ensures that cases are distributed in a manner that balances the expertise of different judges and the demands of various cases.
However, this system has been a subject of debate and scrutiny. Critics argue that vesting such significant power in a single individual, even if it is the Chief Justice, can lead to concerns about transparency, fairness and potential misuse of authority. There are apprehensions that this system could be used to influence the outcome of cases by assigning them to particular judges.
Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur was quoted as saying in the report that during his tenure at the Delhi High Court, when multiple accused were involved in a case, any bail plea filed would include the FIR number. This ensured that all subsequent bail applications related to the same case were heard by the same judge.
This practice aimed to prevent inconsistent rulings for different accused in the same case and to avoid the practice of “bench hunting,” where cases are directed to specific judges for favourable outcomes. Lokur added that this approach should be maintained in the Supreme Court to ensure consistency and fairness in judicial proceedings.
The report refers to the case of political activist Umar Khalid, jailed for over three years, whose bail plea, initially before Justice A.S. Bopanna, was moved to Justice Trivedi’s bench without clear justification. Similarly, petitions challenging the UAPA, initially heard by the Chief Justice’s court, were reallocated to Justice Trivedi, bypassing several senior judges, it adds.
The case of Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka, D.K. Shivakumar, and the bail plea of Bhima Koregaon violence case co-accused Mahesh Raut, were also reassigned to Justice Trivedi’s bench. The same pattern is observed in the skill development scam involving former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and the medical bail plea of jailed Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has written an open letter to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, expressing his concern about how cases are being scheduled in the Supreme Court, as reported by LiveLaw.
“I have personally come across a number of cases listed before various Hon’ble Benches upon first listing and/or in which notice have been issued, being taken away from those Hon’ble Benches and listed before other Hon’ble Benches,” Dave writes. “Despite first coram being available the matters are being listed before Hon’ble Benches in which second coram presides. Matters listed before Court No. 2, 4, 6, 7 amongst others have been shifted out and listed before other Hon’ble Benches in clear disregard of the Rules, the Handbook on Practice and Office Procedure referred above and established Practice and Convention. Curiously, the Seniority of the first coram is also being ignored in doing so.”
“Coram” refers to the judges or members of a court who are present and participating in the proceedings of a particular case. “First coram” refers to the original panel of judges or the first set of judges who hear a case in a court.
“On your appointment, strong hopes were created in the minds of citizens that under your Leadership, the Supreme Court of India will rise to greater heights, the march towards which has somehow paused for some time earlier. The scars caused on account of such improprieties in the past few years on justice delivery have not healed as yet,” Dave writes in the letter.
