Holding

A puisne judge is bound to obey the Chief Justice’s direction to sit on a constituted bench; failure to do so constitutes a breach of judicial discipline and invalidates any order passed in contravention.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ in the Allahabad High Court which was initially listed before Justice A.P. Singh. On 22 December 1995 the Chief Justice reconstituted a Division Bench comprising Justice V.N. Khare and Justice A.P. Singh, but Justice Singh refused to sit on the bench and instead heard the matter singly, granting an ex parte order. The Supreme Court examined whether a puisne judge must obey the Chief Justice’s direction to sit on a constituted bench and whether the ex parte order was valid. It held that the Chief Justice’s prerogative to constitute benches is binding on all judges and that a judge’s refusal to comply undermines judicial discipline. Consequently, the Court set aside the ex parte order, remitted the case to the High Court for fresh consideration before another single judge, and emphasized the duty of judges to follow administrative directions.

Issues considered

When a Chief Justice reconstitutes a Division Bench, must a puisne judge comply and sit on that bench?
Is an ex parte order passed by a single judge who disregarded the Chief Justice’s direction valid?
Should the impugned order be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication?

Subjects

judicial disciplineChief Justice prerogativebench constitutionpuisne judge complianceex parte orderHigh Court administration

Judgment

A INDER MANI AND ORS.
v.
MATHEHWARI PRASAD AND ORS.

OCTOBER 10, 1996

B [A.M. AHMADI, 0. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.]

Judicial Discipline-High Court-Prerogative of Chief Justice to con-
stitute Benches of his High Court-Duty of Puisne Judges to comply with
directions given in this regard-Disregarding of such direction-Deprecated.
c Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition
was listed before Mr. Justice A.P. Singh in Court No. 28. The order passed
by him on 19.12.1995 stated that the case was passed over but as requested
by the petitioner, it will be taken up on 21.12.1995. The writ petition was
placed in that Court before the Single Judge on 21.12.1995 as an unlisted
D case. The Daily Cause List for 21.12.1995 did not list this writ petition
before that Judge. The case was adjourned for 22.12.1995. 9n 22.12.1995
the Chief Justice of that High Court in the morning reconstituted the
Division Bench presided over by M1·. Justice V.N. Khare with Mr. Justice
A.P. Singh. In the Daily Cause List the constitution of this Division Bench
E was shown as originally constituted. On such reconstitution, Justice A.P.
Singh did not join the Division Bench. He sat singly in Court Room No.
28. He allowed that writ petition ex parte though the petition was not listed
in the Daily Cause List of that date. This appeal had been filed against the
judgment of the Single Judge.
F
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court
to constitute Benches of his High Court and to allocate work to such
Benches. Judicial discipline requires that the puisne Judges of the High
G Court comply with the directions given in this regard by their Chief
Justice. In fact it is their duty to do so. 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. When the Chief Justice had
constituted a Division Bench of Justice V.N. Khare and justice A.P. Singh,
H it was incumbent upon Justice A.P. Singh to sit in a Division Bench with
400
INDERMANiv. MATHEHWARIPRASAD [MRS.SUJATA V.MANOHAR,J.] 401

Justice V.N. Khare and dispose of the work assigned to this Division A
Bench. It was most improper on part of Justice A.P. Singh to disregard
'
the administrative directions given by the Chief Justice oflhe High Court
and to sit singly to take up matters that he thought he should take up.
Even if he was originally shown as sitting singly on 22.12.1995, when the
Bench was reconstituted and he was so informed, he was required to sit in B
a Division Bench on that day and was bound to carry out this direction. If
there was any difficulty, it was his duty to go to the Chief Justice and
explain the situation so that the Chief Justice could then give appropriate
directions in that connection. But he could not have, on his own, dis-
regarded the directions given by the Chief Justice and chosen to sit singly.
This behaviour which totally undermines judicial discipline and proper
c
~ functioning of the High Court is deprecated. [403-E-H, 404-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12982 of
1996.
D
From the Judgment of and Order dated 22.12.95 of the Allahabad
High Court in C.M.W. No. 7013 of i980.

R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants.

D.K. Garg and M.C. Dhingra for the Respondents. E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted.
F
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.12.1995 in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 7013 of 1980. By the said judgment the learned Single
Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent ex parte.
On 22.12.1995, the learned advocate who appeared for the appellants had
made an application supported by affidavit dated 22.12.1995 asking for an G
adjournment for reasons stated in the affidavit. This application was not
granted. The learned advocate thereafter did not appear in the case and
the impugned judgment has been passed ex parte. In view of certain

-I

-p
averments made in the special leave petition relating to what transpired in
the Court of the learned Single Judge on 19.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A 22.12.1995 we directed the registrar of the Allahabad High Court to place
before us a status report in this behalf so that we could appreciate and deal
with the averments. The Registrar of. the Allahabad high Court has filed
an affidavit before us along with the daily cause lists for 19.12.1995,
21.12.1995 and 22.12.1995 as also the order-sheets relating to the said writ
B petition.

On 19.12.1995 the writ petition was listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice
A.P. Singh in Court No. 28. The order passed by him on 19th of December,
1995 is to the effect that an illness slip has been received from counsel for
the appellants (respondents before the High Court) although there are
C other counsel also listed as representing the appellants. It goes on to say : ~
.,
"the case is passed over· but as requested by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, it will be taken up on 21.12.1995 on which date it shall not be
adjourned on any ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners may inform
the learned counsel for the respondents that the case will be taken up on
D 21.12.1995."

In view of this order, the writ petition was placed in Court' No. 28
before the learned Single Judge on 21.12.1995 as an unlisted case. The
Daily Cause List for 21.12.1995 does not iist this writ petition before the
E learned Judge. The order passed on 21.12.1995 by the learned Single Judge
is as follows :

"Shri Lalji Pandey learned counsel for the respondents has stated
that he is not aware of the fact that the case is posted for today.
He prays that the case may be put up tomorrow so that he may
F prepare the case. Put up tomorrow (22.12.1995) al 10.00 a.m."

It is the case of learned advocate for the appellants that as he came
out of the court on 21.12.1995 he was threatened by an unknown person
and told not to appear in the case. He claims to have mentioned this to
the learned Single Judge on the same day. He also claims to have men-
G tioned this incident before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad
High Court. However, there is no material on record on the action taken,
if any. . •

On 22.12.1995 the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in the
H morning reconstituted the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice
l
I'
INDERMAN!v. MATHEHWARIPRASAD [MRS.SUJATA V.MANOHAR,J.) 403

V.N. Khare (as he then was) with Mr. Justice A.P. Singh. In the Daily A
Cause List the constitution of this Division Bench was shown as originally
constituted i.e. Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Syed Rafat Alam. The Chief Justice assigned other work of Court Room
No. 36 to Justice Rafat Alam when he reconstituted the Division Bench.
On such reconstitution both the learned judges were informed about the B
arrangements made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. However, Justice A.P.
Singh did not sit on the Division Bench with Justice V.N. Khare. When
Justice A.P. Singh did not join the Division Bench, the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice was apprised of the situation. He thereupon directed that Justice
Aloke Chakrabarti be requested to join Justice V.N. Khare and the
Division Bench was constituted accordingly. Mr. Justice A.P. Singh sat
c
singly in Court Room No. 28. In the Daily Cause List of the learned Judge
for 22.12.1995 also the said writ petition was not listed. He heard the
aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed by him by his judgment and
order dated 22.12.1995.
D
The Registrar's affidavit discloses a somewhat alarming situation. It
is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches of his High
Court and to allocate work to such Benches. Judicial discipline requires
that the puisne Judges of the High Court comply with the directions given
in this regard by their Chief Justice. In fact it is their duty to do so. E
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. When the Chief Justice had constituted a Division Bench of
Justice V.N. Khare and the learned Judge, it was incumbent upon the
learned Judge to sit in a Division Bench with Justice V.N Khare and F
dispose of the work assigned to this Division Bench. It was most improper
on his part to disregard the administrative directions given by the Chief
Justice of the High Court and to sit singly to take up matters that he
thought he should take up. Even if he was originally shown as sitting
singly on 22.12.1995, when the Bench was reconstituted and he was so G
informed, he was required to sit in a Division Bench on that day and was
bound to carry out-this direction. If there was any difficulty; it was his
duty to go the Chief'Justice and explain the situation so that the Chief
Justice could then give appropriate directions in that connection. But he
could not have, on his own, disregarded the directions given by the Chief H
404 SUPREME COURTREPORTS '(1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A Justice and chosen to sit singly. We deprecate this behaviour which totally
undermines judicial discipline· and P,roper functioning of the High Court;

Looking to these regrettable circumstances in which the impugned
order came to be passed ex parte by the learned Single Judge, we set aside
the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for decision
B on merit in accordance with law. The matter may be placed before another
learned Single Judge, by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

R.A. Appeal disposed of.