Only the Chief Justice Has Authority to Initiate Suo Motu Cognizance, Including Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, on the Basis of Letters or Media Reports; Other Benches May Only Place Such Matters Before the CJI on the Administrative Side and Cannot Pass Judicial Orders [Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770; Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254; Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542 ; A.V. Amarnathan Vs. Registrar, High Court of Karnataka 1998 SCC OnLine Kar 664]
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, by first assuming suo motu cognizance and thereafter directing the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, has effectively usurped the exclusive jurisdiction of the CJI as Master of the Roster. Such a course is ex facie contrary to the binding Constitution Bench mandate, violates settled principles of judicial discipline, and renders the entire exercise procedurally untenable and without jurisdiction.
In Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294, it is categorically observed that although Judges may in due course assume the office of Chief Justice, constitutional discipline mandates that they function within their assigned roles and work in judicial tranquillity, without encroaching upon the administrative domain reserved exclusively for the Chief Justice.
In fact, it is a case of contempt of Constitution Bench directions by the two judge bench. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 it is ruled that if a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court refuses to follow the order of a three-Judge Bench, then such conduct of the Two-Judge Bench would be guilty of contempt of court.
In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 574 Full Bench ruled that the Hon’ble Supreme Court Benches before passing any order are bound to verify that their order does not conflict with the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also does not create any confusion about the binding precedents.
This is the fourth instance within a span of two months wherein the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta appears to have acted in disregard of binding precedents, established Supreme Court procedures, and governing rules. The pattern, as alleged, further includes instances of remarks perceived as intimidating towards senior advocates, including women advocates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward communities, in relation to their appearance for clients.
- Supreme Court’s View on Trial of Judges before the People’s Court:
- The Full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re: S. Mulgaonkar, AIR 1978 SC 727, clearly recognised that at critical moments, courts themselves are subject to scrutiny by the people, observing that the ultimate verdict on all institutions lies with “We, the People of India.” This affirms that judicial legitimacy flows from public confidence and constitutional morality.
- Further, in State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that open hearings, reasoned judgments, and public critique are not only permissible but are integral and legally protected features of a democratic system. Such external scrutiny is equally important as that of appeals and reviews as a vital safeguard against arbitrariness, error, and injustice, thereby ensuring judicial accountability.
- In In Re: S. Mulgaonkar, AIR 1978 SC 727, ruled that ;
“ “ Christ and Gandhi shall not be lost on the judges at a critical time when courts are on trial and the people (“We, the People of India”) pronounce the final verdict on all national institutions. ”
- In State of M.P. V/s. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, it is ruled by the Full bench as under;
“70. In Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In re [(1995) 3 SCC 619] this Court observed : (SCC p. 629, para 10)
“10. … None is free from errors, and the judiciary does not claim infallibility. It is truly said that a judge who has not committed a mistake is yet to be born. Our legal system in fact acknowledges the fallibility of the courts and provides for both internal and external checks to correct the errors. The law, the jurisprudence and the precedents, the open public hearings, reasoned judgments, appeals, revisions, references and reviews constitute the internal checks while objective critiques, debates and discussions of judgments outside the courts, and legislative correctives provide the external checks. Together, they go a long way to ensure judicial accountability. The law thus provides procedure to correct judicial errors.”
- Brief background of the case:-
- A serious constitutional issue arises from the events of 13 March 2026, when a Bench comprising Justices Sh. Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took note of media reports regarding illegal sand mining affecting eco-sensitive zones and observed that suo motu cognizance has been taken, with a direction that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
- While the concern for environmental protection is undoubtedly laudable, the procedure adopted is legally defective and vitiates the entire action. The act of taking suo motu cognizance in this manner is contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, and the Constitution Bench judgment in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India.
- These binding precedents unequivocally establish that Judges can take up and hear only those matters which are assigned to them by the Chief Justice, who alone is the Master of the Roster. It is exclusively within the authority of the Chief Justice of India to take cognizance of matters on the administrative side, direct registration of suo motu proceedings, and assign such cases to appropriate Benches. Any assumption of jurisdiction prior to such assignment is contrary to constitutional discipline and established judicial procedure.
- Core Constitutional Principle: Chief Justice as Master of the Roster :-
- The law is no longer res integra. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196, unequivocally settled the law: The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“6. … the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.”
“10. … no Judge can take up the matter on his own, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India…”
- In Nandlal Sharma Versus Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan 1984 SCC OnLine Raj 359, it is ruled that suo motu means Chief Justice.
- Legal Defect in reverse procedure of first taking the cognizance and then asking registry to place it before the Chief justice.:
- The course adopted by the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath in fact reverses the constitutionally mandated process.
- Correct procedure: –
Chief Justice → orders registration of suo motu case → assigns Bench.
- What occurred:
Bench → takes cognizance → directs Registry → seeks validation.
- Why This is Impermissible:
- Violation of Master of the Roster doctrine
- Encroachment on administrative powers of the Chief Justice
- Improper direction to Registry
- Procedural illegality at inception
- The course adopted in the present case reverses the constitutionally mandated procedure governing suo motu jurisdiction. Under the settled constitutional framework, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, as the Master of the Roster, alone exercises the administrative authority to direct registration of a suo motu matter and thereafter assign it to an appropriate Bench for judicial consideration. This ensures institutional discipline and adherence to roster allocation. In the present instance, however, the Bench has first assumed suo motu cognizance on the judicial side and only thereafter directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, thereby seeking post facto administrative validation of an action that could not have been initiated without prior authorization.
- Such a course is ex facie impermissible. It violates the Master of the Roster doctrine, encroaches upon the exclusive administrative powers of the Chief Justice, and results in an improper direction to the Registry, which is bound solely by the administrative control of the Chief Justice. The initiation itself is procedurally illegal, as judicial action cannot precede roster assignment. Consequently, the entire exercise stands vitiated at inception, being contrary to binding constitutional principles and settled law governing judicial discipline and jurisdiction.
- Suo Motu Cognizance: Not a Judicial Power of Individual Benches :- The concept of suo motu cognizance is not an unregulated judicial discretion. It is an administrative-judicial hybrid function, which must originate from the authority of the Chief Justice.
- Limited Exception –
- Section 14 Contempt: A narrow exception to the general rule exists in cases of contempt committed in the face of the Court under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, where the Bench itself may take immediate cognizance and action, such as in situations involving disruption of court proceedings, intimidation of judges, witnesses, or interference with the administration of justice in the courtroom.
- However, outside this limited category, all other instances of alleged contempt or suo motu actions—particularly those arising from acts committed outside the Court, including publications, letters, or media reports—must necessarily follow the prescribed procedure and be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.
- Any deviation from this established procedure is contrary to settled law and vitiates the very initiation of such proceedings.
- Doctrine of “Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus” It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate the unlawful cognizance. :-
- In State ofPunjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770, such unlawful cognizance of the matter against the master of roster principle it is ruled as under;
“ …The Court held that a Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from this procedure is permissible.
…..It is a settled legal proposition that no Judge or a Bench of Judges assumes jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Chief Justice.
It has rightly been pointed out by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice, 1996 AWC 644, that if the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they would like to hear and decide, the machinery of the court could have collapsed and judicial functioning of the court could have ceased by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case.
- In view of the above, the legal regime, in this respect emerges to the effect that the Bench gets jurisdiction from the assignment made by the Chief Justice and the Judge cannot choose as which matter he should entertain and he cannot entertain a petition in respect of which jurisdiction has not been assigned to him by the Chief Justice as the order passed by the court may be without jurisdiction and made the Judge coram non-judice.
“107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.
Thus, by entertaining those applications in a disposed of criminal appeal, the Bench presided over by Mr. Justice X violated the roster fixed by the Chief Justice. Thus, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.”
- In State Vs. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, it is ruled as under;
“37. … It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. ”
VII. Consequences
The legal consequences of such procedurally flawed cognizance are serious:
- The Registry cannot validly register such proceedings,
- Any further listing would be constitutionally vulnerable,
- The proceedings are liable to be declared non est in law,
- It may amount to institutional impropriety and breach of judicial discipline.
- The relevant legal position in detail. :-
Constitution bench in the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the same by observing as under:-
“6. There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice of India is the first amongst the equals, but definitely, he exercises certain administrative powers and that is Page 26 why in Prakash Chand [State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1] , it has been clearly stated that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. The same principle must apply proprio vigore as regards the power of the Chief Justice of India. On the judicial side, he is only the first amongst the equals. But, as far as the Roster is concerned, as has been stated by the three-Judge Bench in Prakash Chand [State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1] , the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.
- The rules have been framed in that regard. True, the rules deal with reference, but the law laid down inPrakash Chand [State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1] has to apply to the Supreme Court so that there will be smooth functioning of the Court and there is no chaos in the administration of justice dispensation system. If any such order has been passed by any Bench, that cannot hold the field as that will be running counter to the order passed by the Constitution Bench. Needless to say, no Judge can take up the matter on his own, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India, as he is the Master of the Roster.”
It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to assign business of the High Court both on judicial and administrative sides. The Chief Justice alone has the power to decide as to how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted. That necessarily means that it is not within the competence of any Single or Division Bench of the High Court to give any direction to the Registry in that behalf which will run contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice.
Full bench in Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254 has ruled that the Suo moto cognizance even in cases of contempt under sec 15 of the Act is prohibited and only the Chief Justice is having jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance.
It is ruled as under;
“In the light of the aforesaid, the procedure laid and directions issued in Duda‘s case are required to be appreciated also keeping in view the additional factor of the Chief Justice being the master of the roster. In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Others [ (1998) 1 SCC 1] it was held that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. He alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted; which Judge is to sit alone and which cases he can and is required to hear as also to which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do.
The directions in Duda‘s case when seen and appreciated in the light of what we have noticed hereinbefore in respect of contempt action and the powers of the Chief Justice, it would be clear that the same prescribe the procedure to be followed by High Courts to ensure smooth working and streamlining of such contempt actions which are intended to be taken up by the court suo motu on its own motion.”
The only exception is the cognizance of contempt in the catgory of sec 14 that on the face of the ciourt such as intimidation to Judges, witnesses etc in the ongoing hearing but when the act is not on the face of the court but committed outside the court then the suo moto cognizance is baarred by the bench other than Chief justice permission.
Hence the act of taking cognizance first and then directing registry to put it before the Chief Justice is vitiated.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jasbir Singh vs State of Punjab (2006) 8 SCC 294 has observed that it is not within the competence of any Single or Division Bench of the High Court, to give any direction to the Registry, in that behalf, which will run contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice. It observed that some Judges, undoubtedly, will become Chief Justices in their own turn one day, but it is imperative under the constitutional discipline that they work in tranquillity. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:-
“ In the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal [(1998) 3 SCC 72], the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the correctness of a direction given under Article 226, by a division bench of the High Court to the Registrar
“A Judge of the High Court individually or all the Judges sitting collectively, as in the Full Court, cannot either alter the constitutional provisions or the rules made by the Chief Justice. They have no jurisdiction even to suggest any constitutional amendment or amendment in the rules made by the Chief Justice nor can they create any avenue of promotion for the High Court staff so as to be appointed on posts meant for officers from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service or Rajasthan Judicial Service. The Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers to run the High Court administration independently so as not to brook any interference from any quarter, not even from his brother Judges who, however, can scrutinise his administrative action or order on the judicial side like the action of any other authority. It should not be lost sight of that Registrars, under rules of various High Courts, have also to perform some limited judicial functions which cannot be done by an officer other than a judicial officer in the High Court establishment.
…. 38. As pointed out above, under the constitutional scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme authority and the other Judges, so far as officers and servants of the High Court are concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side. Some Judges, undoubtedly, will become Chief Justices in their own turn one day, but it is imperative under the constitutional discipline that they work in tranquillity. Judges have been described as “hermits”. They have to live and behave like “hermits” who have no desire or aspiration, having shed it through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not heat. This is necessary so that their latent desire to run the High Court administration may not sprout before time, at least, in some cases.”
In Devine Retreat Ventre Vs. state (2008) 3 SCC 542 It is ruled as under;
“61. […] The individual judges ought not to entertain communications and letters personally addressed to them and initiate action on the judicial side based on such communication so as to avoid embarrassment; that all communications and petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be addressed to the entire Court, that is to say, the Chief Justice and his companion Judges. The individual letters, if any, addressed to a particular judge are required to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration as to the proposed action on such petitions. Each Judge cannot decide for himself as to what communication should be entertained for setting the law in motion be it in PIL or in any jurisdiction.”
- Since the question is one of general importance, we would direct the copies of this judgment should be sent to the High Courts in all the States.”
6.2. A.V. Amarnathan Vs. Registrar, High Court of Karnataka 1998 SCC OnLine Kar 664 it is ruled as under;
43.A.
Whether the cases are to be instituted on regular petitions or on informations received from known or unknown sources and the like, keeping in view the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra). No Judge of the High Court can claim to himself any inherent power to take cognizance of a particular cause either on being moved or suo motu unless it is assigned by the Chief Justice to the Judge concerned. The extent of power of the Chief Justice and that of the Judges of the High Court has to be now treated as authoritatively determined and clearly delineated. But it may be clarified that if any learned Judge, either suo motu or on the basis of information coming to his possession, prima facie finds that any matter, not concerning the jurisdiction assigned to him, needs to be examined in the judicial side of the High Court, then, by recording his opinion in writing, he may refer the same to the Chief Justice for being placed before an appropriate Bench.”
- Thus, there is a specific distinction between subjects allotted to Division Bench and single Judge. It is already settled by the decisions of the Apex Court that the Judges has no jurisdiction to decide cases which are not allotted of them. Further by the doctrine of self-restraint the Judges who receive the telegram, letter or request is made before them has to direct that the concerned case to be placed before the Chief Justice for obtaining permission to post it before the appropriate Bench when the said subject is not allotted to them.
