“Consent Does Not Confer Jurisdiction”: Reaffirming the Chief Justice’s Role in Judicial Roster Allocation

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the matter of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited v. GRSE Limited Workmens Union (2025 INSC 363) examines crucial questions surrounding judicial discipline, allocation of cases by the Chief Justice, and the concept that “consent does not confer jurisdiction.” In this case, the Court addressed a situation where the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta proceeded to hear a writ petition that had not been assigned to it by proper roster. The appellant, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (GRSE Ltd.), challenged the Division Bench’s decision on the ground that the Bench lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter in the first place. The respondent was the GRSE Limited Workmens Union, which sought compassionate appointments for its members.

Against the background of roster designation and judicial propriety, the Supreme Court has clarified how court assignments must strictly follow the determination set by the Chief Justice. This commentary explores the facts, judicial findings, and the implications of this judgment for future service-related and other civil litigation matters.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by GRSE Ltd., setting aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The primary reason for reversal was that the Division Bench did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition originally assigned to a Single Judge. The Supreme Court drew attention to the principle that the Chief Justice, as the master of the roster, has the exclusive power to allocate cases. Any adjudication made outside of that allocation is rendered a nullity, even if both parties to the litigation consent to the matter being heard by a particular Bench.

Consequently, the Supreme Court remanded the writ petition back to the Calcutta High Court with directions to take fresh assignment from the Chief Justice. Additionally, to ensure no rights would be defeated in the interim, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited undertook not to fill up the relevant posts without the High Court’s final decision.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied on the principle of “roster determination” as articulated in earlier significant decisions:

Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania (1981) 4 SCC 8: Addressed the maintainability of appeals and the scope of judicial orders within the Letters Patent framework.
Sohan Lal Baid v. State Of West Bengal, AIR 1990 Calcutta 168: Emphasized that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the sole authority to allocate cases, thereby affirming that the roster is binding.
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1: Approved the dictum in Sohan Lal Baid, confirming that judicial discipline mandates that Judges hear only those matters allocated to them by the Chief Justice.
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 196: Reiterated the principle of assigning cases by the Chief Justice, ensuring judicial propriety.

These precedents firmly establish that any bencher’s or party’s consent cannot override the Chief Justice’s power of roster. The Supreme Court stressed that adopting any other stance would lead to uncertainty and potential abuse in the judicial process.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal analysis hinged on the doctrine of “jurisdiction by determination,” which provides that only the Bench authorized by the Chief Justice may lawfully decide a case. Since the Single Judge had de-listed the matter to await the outcome of a reference in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, the Division Bench took on itself the task of deciding the merits of the writ petition. However, the Supreme Court noted:

Allocation by Chief Justice: A Single Judge had the original roster assignment for the service-related dispute. Absent a formal referral by that Judge and specific determination by the Chief Justice, the Division Bench lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the writ.
Principle of Consent: Even though both parties signaled willingness for the Division Bench to decide the matter, “consent has no role in conferring jurisdiction.” Roster determination cannot be circumvented by mutual agreement of litigants.
Nullity of the Division Bench Judgment: Because the Bench exceeded its authorized scope, the resulting decision was declared void. This preserves the principle that judicial power is strictly governed by procedural rules and the Chief Justice’s roster.

c) Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of judicial discipline in High Courts and the Supreme Court. Future litigants and legal practitioners must approach the correct forum designated by the roster, and a bench cannot, on its own or by consent of parties, expand its adjudicatory domain. This ruling is vital in safeguarding the hierarchy and structural integrity of judicial forums, preventing potentially wasteful or void adjudications, and ensuring that the Chief Justice’s power to set rosters remains robust.

Additionally, the judgment recognizes the legitimate interest of employees in compassionate appointments by urging swift disposal of the matter upon remand. It also highlights that while administrative or procedural considerations are paramount, they should not unduly prejudice individuals seeking legitimate relief.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Roster Determination (Master of the Roster): In Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice has the exclusive authority to assign judges or benches to hear particular categories of cases. This is often referred to as the “roster.” If a matter is heard by a bench that does not have the earmarked assignment, the decision is considered without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.

Compassionate Appointment: This refers to the practice in Indian service law where immediate family members of a deceased or medically incapacitated government/PSU employee may be offered employment on a priority basis, subject to certain qualifying conditions and existing governmental or organizational policies. Although critical for social justice, it remains subject to concurrency requirements between policy and judicial oversight.

Nullity of Orders when Jurisdiction is Lacking: A judgment passed by a court without proper authority loses its binding effect. Such a decision is termed a “nullity,” meaning it is legally void from its inception.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited v. GRSE Limited Workmens Union (2025 INSC 363) delivers a powerful reaffirmation of the principle that no bench may assume jurisdiction without directive from the Chief Justice’s roster. Even where parties consent to a different forum, such consent cannot bestow legitimate authority on a bench otherwise lacking it.

By setting aside the Division Bench’s order, the Court underscores that strict adherence to judicial procedures is indispensable to preserve the judicial institution’s structure and credibility. On remand, the High Court has been instructed to hear the matter on compassionate appointments expeditiously, ensuring that the rightful claims of employees, as well as the defense set up by the employer, are promptly and properly adjudicated.

Ultimately, this ruling highlights the importance of orderly procedure and cohesive case management, reinforcing the Chief Justice’s control over the docket. It stands as a crucial precedent demonstrating how Indian constitutional courts safeguard due process and ensure that justice is achieved by means of properly vested and exercised jurisdiction.