Published on: October 6, 2023 at 11:20 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: State of Rajasthan V. Prakash Chand (1998)
Honourable Supreme Court of India had held that High Court of a State has two jurisdiction i.e., Administrative and Judicial. It is held that the Chief Justice of a High Court has completely administrative control. However, Chief Justice is to be referred as only the first amongst the equals on the judicial side. It is held that Chief Justice is the master of the roster and responsible for constitution of the benches of the court and the Puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
59. From the preceding discussion the following broad Conclusions emerge. This, of course, is not to be treated as a summary of our judgment and the conclusions should be read with the text of the judgment:
(1) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals.
(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted.
(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
(4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice.
(6) That the puisne Judges cannot “pick and choose” any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
