It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that if a High Court Bench hears a case that was not assigned to it by the Chief Justice of the High Court, its order will be considered void and without legal authority.
ALSO READ: ANALYSIS| ‘How High Courts Should tackle Conflicting Judgments’: Supreme Court clarifies
The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal stated that even if both parties agree to have their case heard by such a Bench, it does not grant the Bench the authority to decide the case.
“We hold that any order which a bench – comprising of two judges or a single judge – may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, such an order is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court.”
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a ruling by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The High Court’s Division Bench had passed an order on an intra-court appeal related to the appointment of 48 individuals on compassionate grounds in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (Garden Reach), a Kolkata-based defence shipyard.
ALSO READ: 2019 UAPA Amendment| ‘Always Approach High Court First’: Supreme Court
Brief Facts
The issue arose because a single-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court had earlier deferred the matter in 2022, awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court on a similar case regarding compassionate appointments. Despite this, the Division Bench went ahead and allowed the writ petition while deciding the intra-court appeal.
Garden Reach challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, questioning whether the intra-court appeal against the single-judge’s order was valid.
The top court held that the Division Bench of the High Court could not have entertained the writ petition without authorization from the Chief Justice.
“A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition. As a sequitur, the Division Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order dated March 11, 2024. The Division Bench, without feeling bound by the said order, could and did have the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the absence of any determination.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Division Bench did not have the authority to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ as per the Classification List in the Writ Rules. Matters related to ‘Service (Group VI)’ had been assigned to single-judge Benches by the Chief Justice.
“On the face of such determination, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the writ petition premised on the legal position that they had jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders passed on writ petitions relating to Group VI.”
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored the writ petition before the High Court. It directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the case to an appropriate Bench for a fresh hearing.
“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal, as early as possible, but preferably within six months from today, considering that the respondents have been waiting for their turn for compassionate appointment and the appellants have their own reasons for not proceeding with making such appointment resulting in a delayed determination.”
- For Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers: Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, Brijender Chahar, Nidesh Gupta, and Ranjan Dey, along with advocates Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Bisht, Yati Ranjan, Akash Dixit, and Swati Bansal.
- For GRSE Limited Workmen’s Union and Others: Senior Advocate Soumya Majumdar, along with advocates Swarnendu Chatterjee, Nilay Sengupta, Sujit Banerjee, Deepakshi Garg, Harshita Rawat, and Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.
Case Title: GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs. GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION& ORS
