From Master of the Roster to Master of all Judges?
Recently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in Ritu Chhabria v. Union of India
1 affirmed an undertrial’s right to be released on default bail in the event of the investigation remaining incomplete and proceeding beyond the statutory time limit.
2 It frowned upon नामंजूर करना the practice of investigative agencies charge-sheeting an accused despite the investigation being unfinished.
3 It held that the right to be released on bail will not be extinguished समाप्त on the mere filing of a preliminary charge-sheet. It concluded that an accused’s right to seek default bail would be terminated only upon competition of the investigation within the statutory time limit.
रितु छाबड़िया केस
रितु छाबड़िया मामले के निर्णय में न्यायालय ने कहा कि आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता (CrPC) की धारा 167 (2) के तहत डिफॉल्ट ज़मानत का अधिकार केवल एक सांविधिक अधिकार नहीं है, बल्कि एक मूल अधिकार है जो अभियुक्तों की ‘राज्य की अबाध और मनमानी शक्ति’ से रक्षा के लिये संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 से शक्ति प्राप्त करता है।’’
रितु छाबरिया मामले में न्यायालय ने निर्णय दिया कि जाँच पूरी किये बिना जाँच एजेंसी द्वारा दायर किया गया अपूर्ण आरोप-पत्र अभियुक्त के डिफॉल्ट ज़मानत के अधिकार को पराजित नहीं करेगा।
इस मामले में देखा गया कि जाँच अधिकारियों द्वारा नियमित रूप से 60/90-दिन की अवधि के भीतर अपूर्ण या पूरक आरोप-पत्र दायर किया गया ताकि अभियुक्त को डिफॉल्ट ज़मानत की मांग करने से अवरुद्ध किया जा सके।
An extraordinary decision
केंद्र का आवेदन ?
Subsequently, in a surprising turn of events, the Court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) entertained a recall application moved by the Union of India against this judgment.
रितु छाबरिया सुनवाई के ऊपर भरोसा नहीं?.
It then passed an interim order directing courts to decide bail applications without relying on the decision laid down in Ritu Chhabria for a short period of time.
the Court of the CJI indirectly stayed the decision despite not having any connection with the verdict.
केंद्र के पास क्या हथियार था ?
Ordinarily, the only recourse available to the Union of India was the filing of a review petition, which is usually decided by the same Bench.
There was no scope of the review petition being entertained by the Court of the CJI. The only way the Court of the CJI could enter the fray would be if there was another Coordinate Bench seized of the same issue in a separate matter, expressing its disagreement with the ratio laid in Ritu Chhabria and referring it to the CJI for recommendation to a larger Bench.
First amongst equals
all have full power?
1 Within the constitutional scheme of things, all judges of the Supreme Court are equal in terms of their judicial powers.
2 However, the CJI enjoys special administrative powers such as constituting Benches and assigning matters and references for reconsideration of a larger Bench.
The CJI is known as the ‘Master of the Roster.’ This is why he is regarded as ‘first amongst equals’ in relation to companion judges.
वोट की ताकत?
But in any given Bench including the CJI, the vote or power given to the CJI is the same as that given to his companion judges.
🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅
What is the minority opinion?
🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅
1 History is replete भरा हुआ with examples of the CJI authoring a minority opinion of the Court.
2 The most recent such order was the one passed by the Supreme Court in the Economic Weaker Sections quota dispute where the then CJI, Justice U.U. Lalit, along with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat authored the minority opinion of the Court.
Most Commonwealth countries such as the U.K., Australia and Canada have this system in place. And countries which don’t, such as the U.S., instead have a system where all the judges collectively exercise power and render decisions since they sit en bloc.
🍅 they do it all together and at the same time
Thus, they reflect the collective strength of the Court
and not of Benches, as is the case in India. In India, the legitimacy of the power of Master of the Roster has been hotly debated, and has been, from time to time, reaffirmed फिर से पुष्टि की to the extent of administrative decisions for the smooth functioning of the Court.
Cause for concern
गलत इस्तेमाल
Despite the administrative usefulness of the ‘Master of the Roster’ system, the many recorded instances of abuse are a cause for concern.
Just five years ago, four senior judges of the Supreme Court alleged serious infirmities and irregularities in the administration and assigning of cases for hearing to Benches of the Court.
The powers vested in the CJI by his virtue of being the Master of the Roster are unendingअसीम ।
It is impractical to lay any limits on these powers, meant for the smooth administrative functioning of the Court. It is imperative अनिवार्य that the CJI himself refrains from expanding his powers as Master of the Roster; the practice of constituting Benches and allocating cases should be completely computerised and left out of the hands of the CJI.
The CJI’s powers as the Master of the Roster are meant only for administrative decision-making.
The order has the effect of enlarging the powers of the CJI on the judicial side and of creating an unprecedented intra-court appellate mechanism within the Supreme Court in total disregard of the established procedure, which is a review petition. The instant order has also dulled the bright line prohibiting the Court of the CJI from assuming that it is superior to all other Benches.
source the Hindu
Comments
Post a Comment