Allahabad High Court dismisses plea challenging Rule which allows Chief Justice to delegate powers to Senior Judges

The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging a provision in Allahabad High Court Rules of 1952 which allows Chief Justice to delegate his powers during his absence, to senior judges of the High Court (Ashok Pande v. Allahabad High Court). .A Bench led by Chief Justice Govind Mathur, said that the petition was fundamentally misconceived and dismissed it. .The petition was filed by Ashok Pandey, who appeared in person. The plea was filed for "not giving effect to provisions contained in Chapter V Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952" which prescribes the appointment of senior judges at Allahabad and Lucknow to exercise jurisdiction at their respective places in connection with arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and like other matters (Master of roasters)It was also contended that the said Rules should be amended in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Pande v. Supreme Court of India. In that judgment, the Supreme Court had held that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or High Court is the master of roster with exclusive right to allocate cases and constitute Bench in the court. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that Chief Justice of a High Court is master of roster and no other judge should be allowed to interfere in dispensation of this privileged function. .The High Court said that the object of the Rule under challenge is to make the High Court functional by delegating certain authorities of the Chief Justice in his absence, to senior judges..We do not find any merit in the petition for writ which on its face appears to be fundamentally misconceived. Suffice to state that no challenge is given to the Rule aforesaid and nothing has been said as to how the Rule is bad. The object of the Rule is to make the High Court functional by delegating certain authorities of the Chief Justice to Senior Judge in his absence," the Court held..The Court also said that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to legislate the Rules and is also not supposed to direct the Law Framing Authorities..The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition stating "no interference at all is warranted.".[Read Order]