All judges equal for us, CJI tells lawyers over arbitrary listing allegations

In his first rejoinder to the charges levelled by a group of lawyers claiming arbitrary change in listing of select matters in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud called it “surprising” that some lawyers want their cases to be listed before specific judges and not before some others although all judges are to be treated equal on the judicial side. Justice Chandrachud added that it was easy to make allegations.

The CJI took umbrage at the letters he said were being filed in the court registry complaining about matters being allegedly pulled out from the benches they were initially assigned to.

“It’s very easy to fling allegations and letters...It’s extremely surprising for the members of the bar to say that I want A particular judge to hear my matter and not judge B to hear it. All judges are equal for us,” justice Chandrachud said.

The CJI, as the administrative head of the top court, is the “master of the roster” and the power to allocate benches and cases to different judges vests with him.

Justice Chandrachud’s remarks on Thursday came in the wake of a recent controversy, sparked by letters shot to the CJI and the court registry by senior counsel Dushyant Dave and advocate Prashan Bhushan.

In his letter addressed to the CJI earlier this month, Dave voiced his anguish over the transfer of cases from benches originally hearing them to others, in “disregard” of the court’s own rules. Dave also claimed in his letter that cases were being taken away from the senior judge on the bench and listed before the junior judges presiding in different combinations.

To be sure, the listing rules in the top court require the cases to be marked to judges, in accordance with their roster -- as assigned by the CJI, and not to the benches. It essentially means that a case follows a judge and not a bench.

Bhushan also sent two letters to the court registry earlier this month, complaining against delisting of certain cases from the benches originally hearing them.

These letters were written by the veteran lawyers days after the case relating to delays by the Union government in processing the collegium’s recommendations on judicial appointments was abruptly dropped from the list of business on December 5. On that day, justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who leading the bench, remarked that though he was willing to hear the matter, “some things are best left unsaid”, and added that the CJI was aware of the reason for the deletion. Both Dave and Bhushan appear in the case relating to judicial appointments.

On Thursday, the CJI took the opportunity to clear the air as he addressed senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Singhvi was appearing for former Delhi minister Satyendra Jain, whose bail plea in a money laundering case was initially posted before a bench comprising justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi but it was later assigned to a bench led by justice Trivedi that included some other judge.

Singhvi mentioned the matter before the CJI on Thursday morning, objecting to the listing of the matter before the new bench after it was heard at length by the bench headed by justice Bopanna. The CJI refused to interfere with the hearing of the matter before justice Trivedi, adding he would still check the papers during the lunch break.

When the bench resumed after the lunch break, the CJI told Singhvi that he had checked the issue and that Jain’s plea was listed before justice Trivedi only after the registry received a communication from justice Bopanna’s office that due to his medical condition, he is unable to hold court.

“There is a communication from the office of justice Bopanna. He has not resumed office after the Diwali break due to medical reasons. The communication stated that all matters which were heard by him, should be released. Therefore, this matter was assigned to justice Trivedi, who had last heard the matter with justice Bopanna...Now, I cannot compel a judge not to hear a case,” justice Chandrachud said.

Singhvi told the Court that his concern was only because he had argued at length for over 2 hours for Jain on November 6. Following this date, the matter was directed to be listed before the same bench on November 24 and it was on that date, the matter came up before a bench headed by justice Trivedi.

Responding, the judge said that the registry assigned the matter to justice Trivedi on November 21. “Since then, the matter was listed on three occasions before justice Trivedi – on November 24, December 4 and December 11, – and on all occasions the matter was adjourned...It’s none of my business what a learned judge does on the judicial side. But the reason why justice Trivedi had to hear the matter is because there is an application for extension of interim bail. If she doesn’t hear it, your client will have to surrender. I thought I will clarify it.”

At this point, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who was present in court, said: “The only way to deal with such malicious letters is to ignore them. These letters should not be given dignity with a response.”

Later, Jain’s bail plea was taken up the justice Trivedi-bench, which extended his interim bail till January 8 when the case will be heard next.

Jain, who was arrested in May 2022, has been accused of laundering money through four companies allegedly linked to him. Subsequent to the probe, ED had last year attached assets worth ₹4.81 crore belonging to these companies. The ED probe began pursuant to a 2017 case registered against Jain by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

He was granted interim medical bail by the Supreme Court on May 26. The medical bail has been extended from time to time ever since.