Roster control and judicial discipline: a Judge cannot challenge lawful bench allocation or make unsustainable remarks without hearing affected persons.

The Chief Justice controls the roster and allocation of judicial business, and a puisne Judge cannot in collateral proceedings call for the record of a disposed matter, question a lawful transfer to a Division Bench, or issue contempt notice against the Chief Justice for exercising that administrative power. The document also states that disparaging remarks against the Chief Justice, the Division Bench, and former Chief Justices over alleged illegal daily allowance drawal and misappropriation were made without hearing the persons concerned, lacked factual foundation, and were legally unsustainable. It concludes that such observations, allegations, and the contempt notice were quashed and expunged.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a single Judge could, while hearing an unrelated matter, call for the record of a disposed writ petition, comment on its disposal, and direct issuance of contempt notice to the Chief Justice for transferring that part-heard matter to a Division Bench; (ii) whether disparaging findings and remarks made against the Chief Justice, the Division Bench, and former Chief Justices regarding alleged illegal drawal of daily allowance and misappropriation of public funds were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): whether a single Judge could, while hearing an unrelated matter, call for the record of a disposed writ petition, comment on its disposal, and direct issuance of contempt notice to the Chief Justice for transferring that part-heard matter to a Division Bench.

Analysis: The administrative control of the High Court and the allocation of judicial business vest in the Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster and alone determines Benches and allotment of work. Under the relevant High Court Rules, a case involving constitutional questions could be sent to a Division Bench, and this power extended even to a part-heard case. A puisne Judge could not assume jurisdiction over a matter not allotted to him, nor could he question the Chief Justice's administrative order in collateral proceedings. Calling for the record of a disposed writ petition in an unrelated criminal revision and making observations on its merits was outside jurisdiction and contrary to judicial discipline. A contempt notice could not be issued against the Chief Justice for a judicial order made within statutory powers.

Conclusion: The transfer of the part-heard writ petition to a Division Bench was lawful, and the contempt notice against the Chief Justice was without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether disparaging findings and remarks made against the Chief Justice, the Division Bench, and former Chief Justices regarding alleged illegal drawal of daily allowance and misappropriation of public funds were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The remarks were made behind the back of the persons concerned and in breach of natural justice. On the facts, the High Court guest house at Jaipur had been placed under the High Court's control, and the daily allowance regime did not support the conclusion that the former Chief Justices had drawn allowance illegally or that any public funds were misappropriated. The conclusion that the then Chief Justice of India had drawn Rs. 250 per day illegally was factually incorrect, since that rate applied only from a later date. The imputations of criminal misappropriation and the intemperate remarks against judges and judicial functionaries lacked factual foundation, legal support, and procedural propriety.

Conclusion: The disparaging remarks and findings on daily allowance and alleged misappropriation were unjustified, factually incorrect, and legally unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned observations, allegations, and the contempt notice were quashed and expunged, and the appeal was allowed, leaving the pending criminal revision to be decided independently on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Chief Justice alone controls roster and bench allocation, and a Judge cannot, in collateral proceedings, question a lawful administrative transfer or make adverse findings beyond the issues before him; judicial remarks against persons not heard are unsustainable.

---