SC judge shares his experience of HC on allocation of cases

The hearing in the Supreme Court on the plea against existing roster practice of allocation of cases by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) today saw Justice A K Sikri sharing his views on how in high courts, some judges express their "displeasure" when a particular matter is not given to them.

"We have been in the high courts also. Many judges go to the chief justice and say give me this jurisdiction and this matter. Many express their displeasure that 'why I (judge) was not given this matter'," Justice Sikri observed.

The remarks by Justice Sikri came after advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing for the petitioner and former law minister Shanti Bhushan, referred to the submissions by Attorney General K K Venugopal about some judges' interest in hearing some cases.

Venugopal said the petitioner's demand to vest the power to allocate cases to the five-member Collegium of the apex court, instead of the CJI, might lead to "conflict" among the judges as to who would hear which matter.

He said if the Collegium was vested with this power, then the judges would express their views for themselves and might want to hear a particular matter.

Venugopal also referred to controversial former Calcutta High Court judge, Justice C S Karnan, who was held guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to jail for six months by a seven-judge constitution bench of the top court.

He said when Karnan was a judge in the high court, he used to tell the chief justice to give him bail matters.

The apex court, which reserved its order on the plea, said the petition would be decided as per constitutional provisions.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that there was no "practical difficulty" if the issue of allocation of cases was decided by the apex court Collegium or the full court, instead of the CJI alone.

He said as per Venugopal's arguments, if the judges could have interest in hearing a particular matter, then the CJI might also have the same interest. "It would be safer if the Collegium decides this," he said.

However, the bench observed that "practical difficulty is not an issue. We have to decide what the constitutional provisions say. Constitutional provisions will have to be looked into."