New Delhi: In the limelight recently for the allegedly arbitrary manner in which cases were being assigned in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Thursday (December 14) said he cannot control how a judge handles a case listed before them and will not intervene.
The CJI refused to intervene on the issue of listing of Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain’s petition for bail in a money laundering case before a bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Deccan Herald reported.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Jain, said in front of the CJI’s bench that the matter should be deferred. He also said that the case had originally been listed in front of a bench headed by Justice A.S. Bopanna, and was later moved to Justice Trivedi’s bench.
The chief justice refused to intervene. “I will not control what the judge is doing in the matter listed before her. The judge who has the case will decide. I cannot. I cannot take a call,” he said.
On December 6, senior advocate Dushyant Dave had written a letter to CJI Chandrachud on the question of case listing. “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. Despite first coram being available the matters are being listed before a 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. Our attention is also been drawn by esteemed Colleagues at the Bar, Seniors, and Advocates on Record (AoRs), about various cases in which they have appeared in the first instance on numerous occasions, later the matters being listed before different Benches. It would not be proper for me to enumerate these matters as many of them are pending,” Dave wrote.
Soon after, advocate Prashant Bhushan wrote to the registrar of the Supreme Court, questioning the way in which sensitive cases were being transferred to the bench headed by Justice Trivedi. Bhushan specifically expressed concern about a batch of matters challenging Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act cases coming up before Justice Trivedi.
An article in Article 14 had highlighted the news about cases being listed in front of Justice Trivedi, reporting that “An analysis of eight politically sensitive cases shows they were moved to Justice Bela M Trivedi of the Supreme Court over the past four months, even though the rules of assignment say they should remain with the senior judge or before a judge hearing a similar case.”