Introduction
In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial discipline and institutional hierarchy, the Supreme Court of India has held that a High Court Bench cannot assume jurisdiction to hear a case without authorisation from the Chief Justice, even if all parties consent to such hearing.
The Court clarified that consent of litigating parties cannot confer jurisdiction, as the power to constitute Benches and allocate cases lies exclusively with the Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster.
Chief Justice Alone Controls Bench Assignment
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Chief Justice of a High Court exercises exclusive administrative authority over roster allocation and Bench composition. This authority, the Court observed, ensures orderly functioning, consistency, and institutional integrity within the judiciary.
The Bench held that no individual judge or Bench can take up a matter without express or implied roster assignment, regardless of convenience or party agreement.
Consent of Parties Does Not Cure Jurisdictional Defect
Rejecting the argument that mutual consent legitimises Bench jurisdiction, the Court ruled that jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement, acquiescence, or waiver.
The Supreme Court emphasised that procedural propriety and jurisdictional discipline are matters of constitutional importance, not private arrangements between litigants.
Roster Discipline Is Integral to Judicial Independence
The Court observed that allowing Benches to hear matters without Chief Justice approval would lead to forum shopping, inconsistency, and erosion of judicial independence.
Such practices, the Bench warned, undermine the rule of law and weaken public confidence in the judicial system.
Administrative Power Cannot Be Bypassed
The Supreme Court made it clear that administrative control over case allocation is non-negotiable. Even well-intentioned departures from roster norms cannot justify bypassing the Chief Justice’s authority.
Judicial convenience, urgency, or consent of counsel, the Court noted, cannot override constitutional structure.
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment has far-reaching implications for:
- High Court roster management
- Limits on party autonomy in court proceedings
- Prevention of forum shopping
- Reinforcement of Chief Justice’s administrative supremacy
The ruling will guide High Courts nationwide in maintaining procedural discipline and institutional coherence.
