Asok Pande vs. Supreme Court of India and Ors.

(2018 SCC 196)

Facts of the case: Present petition was filed seeking relief pertaining to establishment of bench of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India. Directions were also sought for bifurcation of Supreme Court into various separate divisions.

Observation and Decision:

1. In the case of Asok Pande vs. Supreme Court of India and Ors. (2018 SCC 196), the petitioner filed a petition seeking changes in the structure of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India. The petitioner wanted the court to establish benches and separate divisions within the Supreme Court. The court, however, made several observations and decisions in response to the petitioner’s claims.
2. Firstly, the court emphasized that it is a well-established principle that no mandamus (a judicial order) can be issued to direct a body or authority with rule-making powers to create rules in a specific manner. The Supreme Court, under Article 145, has the authority to frame its rules of procedure, and the court cannot be directed on how to do so.
3. Similarly, the petitioner couldn’t demand the constitution of benches in a specific manner or the creation of separate divisions within the Supreme Court. Such decisions fall under the prerogative powers of the Chief Justice.
4. The petitioner proposed a precept suggesting specific compositions for three-judge benches and Constitution Benches, based on seniority. However, the court rejected this notion, stating that there is no constitutional foundation for such suggestions. Every judge appointed to the Supreme Court has an equal duty to adjudicate cases, irrespective of seniority.
5. The Chief Justice of India was highlighted as “primus inter pares,” meaning the first among equals. While the Chief Justice has exclusive prerogative in allocating cases and forming benches, this authority is necessary for the efficient functioning of the court. The Chief Justice is considered an institution in himself and plays a crucial role in fulfilling the constitutional obligations of the Supreme Court.
6. The court dismissed the petition, deeming it meritless. It also criticized the petitioner for making scandalous averments and advised him to be more cautious and responsible in the drafting of future pleadings. The court emphasized the importance of trust in the Chief Justice’s role as the head of the institution, entrusted with functions to ensure the Supreme Court’s independence and the preservation of personal liberty.
7. In conclusion, the court rejected the petitioner’s requests, reaffirming the Chief Justice’s pivotal role, and stressed the need for responsible pleadings in legal matters.