Judicial Discipline

Judicial discipline:The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the HC. (AIR 1982 SC 1198)Mad HC 1991 (2) Mad LW 80 (FB) The Hon’ble the Chief Justice has the inherent power to allocate the judicial business of the HC including who of the Judges should sit alone and who should constitute the Bench of two or more Judges.No litigant shall, upon such constitution of a Bench or allotment of a case to a particular Judge of the Court will have a right to question the jurisdiction of the Judges or the Judge hearing the case.No person can claim as a matter of right that this petition be heard by a single Judge or a Division Bench or a particular single Judge or a particular Division Bench.
No judge on a Bench of Judges will assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.The Supreme Court in (1996) 6 SCC 587It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute benches of his High Court and the allocate work to such benches.
Judicial discipline requires that the puisne Judges of the HC comply with directions given in this regard by their Chief Justice.Individual puisne Judges cannot pick and choose the matters they will hear or decide nor can they decide whether to sit singly or in a Division Bench.Calcutta HC in AIR 1990 Cal 168 (DB)Till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who sits singly or constitute a DB with another Judge and take up any other kind of judicial business.FB of Allahabad HC in Snajay Kumar Srivastava vs Acting Chief Justice(1996 All Weekly cases 644)If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case.The nucleus for proper functioning of the Court is the ‘self’ and ‘judicial’ discipline of Judges which is sought to be achieved by Rules of Court by placing in the hands of the Chief Justice full authority and power to distribute work to the Judges and to regulate their jurisdiction and sittings.SC in AIR 1990 SC 1737Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army.The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our judges.This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary.Respect to those who come before the Court as well to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the Judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the Judge nor for the judicial process.The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power. Not only do Judges have power to make binding decision, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials.
The Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the Court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the Court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administrative of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case.By the very nature of their office, the Judges of the SC or the HC, cannot enter into a public controversy and file affidavits to repudiate any criticism or allegations made against them. Silence, as an option, becomes necessary by the very nature of the office which the Judges hold.Those who criticise the Judges in relation to their judicial or administrative work, must remember that the criticism, even if outspoken, can only be of the judgment but not of the Judge.By casting aspersions on the Judges personally or using intemperate language against them, the critics, whoever they may be, strike a blow at the prestige of the institution and erode its credibility. That must be avoided at all costs.