Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Sanctity: Chief Justice Cannot Administratively Alter Bench Orders, Says Justice Oka

In a powerful reaffirmation of judicial independence and the strict demarcation of powers, Supreme Court Justice Abhay S Oka has unequivocally declared that a Chief Justice cannot issue administrative directives to a bench to modify its judicial order. This pivotal statement underscores a fundamental principle: once a judicial order is passed, its alteration falls solely within the purview of the bench that issued it, typically through a formal review process.

The crucial observation emerged during a significant hearing by a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

The case at hand involved a plea challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court related to the contentious Gyanvapi mosque dispute. The Supreme Court had been closely scrutinizing an unusual development within the Allahabad High Court where, subsequent to a single-judge bench passing a judicial order, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court had issued an administrative order seeking to "clarify" the judicial pronouncement.

Justice Oka, expressing the bench's concern, emphasized that such administrative interventions into judicial decisions are impermissible.

He articulated with clarity that the authority to recall or modify a judicial order resides exclusively with the very bench that originally rendered it. This can only be initiated through established legal avenues, such as a review petition or a specific application presented directly to the same bench.

These procedures are designed to ensure judicial consistency and to prevent arbitrary interference with decided matters.

The distinction between the Chief Justice's administrative powers and a bench's judicial authority was central to Justice Oka's remarks. While a Chief Justice holds the significant administrative power as "Master of the Roster" – enabling them to allocate cases to different benches – this administrative prerogative does not extend to dictating or altering the judicial outcomes of those benches.

Judicial decision-making, once rendered, is insulated from administrative oversight, ensuring the impartiality and finality of court judgments, subject only to appeal or review through prescribed judicial channels.

The specific High Court order under the Supreme Court's scanner was the May 21 order from the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the appointment of a court commissioner to conduct a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque premises.

The subsequent administrative "clarification" by the Allahabad High Court's Chief Justice had raised eyebrows, prompting the Supreme Court to examine the propriety of such an action. The Supreme Court's stance reaffirms that judicial integrity demands a clear separation between administrative management and judicial adjudication.

This pronouncement by Justice Oka is more than just a procedural clarification; it is a powerful reinforcement of the bedrock principles of India's judicial system.

It reiterates the sanctity of judicial orders and safeguards against any potential erosion of judicial autonomy. For litigants and legal practitioners alike, it provides clarity on the legitimate pathways for challenging or seeking modifications to court orders, ensuring due process and the unwavering independence of the judiciary.