Introduction

The landmark case of Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India And Another (2017 INSC 1112) deliberated upon the procedural intricacies and authority vested in the Chief Justice of India (CJI) concerning the constitution of benches within the Supreme Court. The petitioners, representing the Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal individually, filed successive writ petitions alleging corrupt practices involving a retired High Court Judge, thereby challenging the judiciary's integrity and procedural norms.

The core issues addressed in this case revolve around the legitimacy of filing multiple identical petitions in a short span, the authority of the CJI in bench composition, allegations of forum hunting, and the sanctity of judicial processes against attempts to undermine them.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, presided over by a Constitution Bench, dismissed the petitions filed by CJAR and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. The Court reaffirmed the CJI's exclusive authority to constitute benches and allocate cases, thus invalidating any conflicting orders by subordinate benches. Furthermore, the Court condemned the act of filing multiple identical petitions as an attempt at forum hunting, which undermines judicial decorum and integrity.

In essence, the Court emphasized that no individual, including members of the judiciary or the CJI, is above the established procedural norms. Allegations without substantial evidence and attempts to manipulate judicial procedures are met with strict contempt, safeguarding the judiciary's independence and credibility.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents reinforcing the CJI's authority and the judiciary's independence:

• State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1: Established that the CJI is the master of the roster, possessing the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases.
• D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216: Reinforced the CJI's authority in bench constitution and dismissed allegations of bias as attempts to bring the judiciary into disrepute.
• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655: Highlighted the necessity of consulting the CJI before any investigation involving high judicial officials.
• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388: Affirmed that Supreme Court orders are binding under Articles 142 and 144 of the Constitution, even on the CJI.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning was anchored in upholding the established hierarchy and procedural protocols of the judiciary:

1. Authority of the Chief Justice: The CJI's role as the master of the roster is non-negotiable, and any deviation compromises the system's integrity.
2. Forum Hunting: Filing multiple identical petitions to garner favorable hearings constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, warranting contempt proceedings.
3. Judicial Independence: Allegations against judges without substantial evidence are detrimental to the judiciary's reputation and are treated with utmost seriousness.
4. Binding Nature of Precedents: Established decisions by Constitution Benches are binding on all benches, ensuring uniformity and consistency in judicial proceedings.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future litigants and the judiciary:

• Strengthening Judicial Authority: Reaffirms the CJI's exclusive rights in bench constitution, deterring future attempts to undermine judicial processes.
• Deterrence Against Procedural Manipulation: Establishes a clear stance against forum hunting, discouraging litigants from adopting such strategies.
• Protection of Judicial Integrity: Ensures that allegations against judges are scrutinized rigorously, preserving the judiciary's sanctity.
• Uniform Application of Precedents: Promotes consistency across Supreme Court benches, fostering a predictable and orderly legal environment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Master of the Roster

The term refers to the authority vested in the Chief Justice of India to assign cases to various benches of the Supreme Court. This ensures an organized and efficient distribution of judicial work, preventing arbitrary or biased case allocations.

Forum Hunting

A practice where a litigant files multiple identical or similar petitions across different courts to secure a favorable judgment. This undermines the judicial system's efficiency and reputation.

Constitution Bench

A bench consisting of five judges in the Supreme Court, constituted to hear cases of significant public importance or to resolve internal disputes regarding court procedures and protocols.

Contempt of Court

Any act that disrespects or undermines the authority, dignity, or functioning of the judiciary. In this case, filing successive identical petitions was deemed contemptuous.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India And Another serves as a robust affirmation of the Chief Justice of India's authority in constituting benches and managing the court's docket. By dismissing attempts at forum hunting and emphasizing the judiciary's independence, the Court not only protected its integrity but also set a precedent for upholding procedural sanctity against manipulative litigative strategies.

This judgment underscores the delicate balance between litigants' rights and the judiciary's need to maintain order, efficiency, and impartiality. It sends a clear message that the legal system will not tolerate actions that seek to disrupt its functioning or tarnish its reputation without substantive grounds.

In the broader legal context, this case reinforces the principles of judicial discipline and decorum, ensuring that the judiciary remains a respected and unassailable pillar of the constitutional framework.