1997 (11) TMI 529 - SC - Indian Laws

Improper conduct by Judge quashed, emphasizing Chief Justice's authority. Judicial discipline upheld. Appeal allowed.

State of Rajasthan Versus Prakash Chand

The court held that the actions of Shethna, J. in calling for records of a disposed writ petition, issuing a contempt notice to the Chief Justice, and ... - Issues Involved:1. Authority of a Single Judge to Call for Records of a Disposed Writ Petition.2. Judicial Discipline and Propriety in Issuing Notices of Contempt.3. Power of the Chief Justice in Allocating Cases and Constituting Benches.4. Allegations Against Former Chief Justices Regarding Daily Allowance.Detailed Analysis:1. Authority of a Single Judge to Call for Records of a Disposed Writ Petition:The court addressed whether Shethna, J. had judicial or administrative authority to call for the record of Writ Petition No. 2949/96, which had already been disposed of by a Division Bench, while hearing an unrelated criminal revision petition. The court concluded that Shethna, J. had no such authority. The record was called for purposes not strictly judicial, and the comments made were unrelated to the criminal revision petition. This act was deemed improper and beyond the jurisdiction of Shethna, J.2. Judicial Discipline and Propriety in Issuing Notices of Contempt:The court examined whether a single judge could issue a contempt notice to the Chief Justice for transferring a part-heard case to a Division Bench. It was held that such an action by Shethna, J. was subversive of judicial discipline and decorum expected of a puisne judge. The issuance of the notice was found to be without jurisdiction and smacked of judicial authoritarianism. The court emphasized that no action could lie against a judge of a court of record for a judicial act done within his jurisdiction, even if erroneous.3. Power of the Chief Justice in Allocating Cases and Constituting Benches:The court reiterated that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the prerogative to allocate cases and constitute benches. The Chief Justice alone has the authority to decide which judge will sit alone and which will constitute a Division Bench. The court cited several precedents to support this view, including rulings from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and the Supreme Court itself. The court concluded that the Chief Justice's order referring the writ petition to a Division Bench was legally valid and unexceptionable.4. Allegations Against Former Chief Justices Regarding Daily Allowance:The court examined the allegations made by Shethna, J. against former Chief Justices, including the present Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, regarding the drawal of daily allowances. The court found these allegations to be factually incorrect, legally unsound, and procedurally improper. The court noted that no audit objection had been raised during the tenure of Mr. Justice J.S. Verma and that the daily allowance rates cited by Shethna, J. were incorrect for the relevant periods. The court emphasized that the comments were made recklessly and without factual basis, amounting to an abuse of judicial authority.Conclusion:The court held that all comments, observations, and aspersions made by Shethna, J. against the Chief Justice and the learned judges constituting the Division Bench were without justification or jurisdiction. The court quashed and expunged these comments from the record. The direction to issue a show-cause notice to the Chief Justice was also quashed and set aside. The court expressed serious disapproval of the manner in which Shethna, J. had acted, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and discipline. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.