Introduction
In a recent ruling that clarifies the judicial process in bail matters, the Supreme Court of India observed that it was improper for a High Court Judge to refuse to refer a bail application to the earlier Judge who had heard the connected anticipatory bail plea, simply on the ground that the earlier Judge’s roster had changed.
The Court stressed that only the Chief Justice of a High Court has the prerogative to allocate or reallocate cases, including references back to the same judge. This decision was delivered by a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti in M/s Netisty Systems Pvt Ltd v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 962).
This landmark judgment is significant in reinforcing judicial discipline, clarifying the powers of individual judges versus the Chief Justice, and ensuring consistency in bail jurisprudence.
Case Background
The dispute arose from an FIR in which two accused persons sought anticipatory bail before the Delhi High Court. Their anticipatory bail application had earlier been dismissed by a particular Single Judge.
Later, when they applied for regular bail, the matter came before another Judge of the High Court. The appellants requested that the matter be referred to the same Judge who had dealt with the anticipatory bail application.
However, this request was rejected on the ground that the earlier Judge’s roster had changed, and he was currently sitting in a Division Bench.
This refusal became the subject of challenge before the Supreme Court, which found the reasoning problematic and inconsistent with established judicial norms.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court came down strongly against the reasoning of the High Court Judge. The Bench held that recording such a reason gives the impression that but for the change in roster, the matter might have been referred to the same Judge, which is not an acceptable judicial basis.
Key Points from the Judgment:
- Improper to cite roster change as reason
- The Court held that a Judge cannot decline to refer a matter back to the earlier Judge simply because the latter’s roster has changed or he is sitting in another combination.
- Prerogative of the Chief Justice
- The Bench reiterated that it is the exclusive power of the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute benches and allocate judicial business. No Single Judge can consider roster composition while deciding transfer or reference requests.
- Registry cannot act without Chief Justice’s approval
- Even if a Judge makes a transfer order, the Registry must not implement it until the Chief Justice issues suitable orders.
- Judicial discipline must prevail
- Judges should not base their decision-making on roster changes or bench composition, as these are matters of judicial administration under the Chief Justice’s authority.
Reference to Previous Precedent
The Bench discussed the earlier order in Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court (Feb 7, 2025), where it was observed that the general rule of listing bail matters before the same bench could be relaxed if the earlier Judge’s roster had changed. That order was passed to reduce delays in bail hearings.
However, the present Bench clarified that the Mahto ruling did not mean that an individual Judge was barred from referring a bail matter back to the earlier Judge. The referral is still possible—subject to the Chief Justice’s approval.
Thus, while delays must be avoided, judicial propriety requires that references and transfers remain within the administrative domain of the Chief Justice.
Important Excerpts from the Judgment
The Bench, speaking through Justice Amanullah, observed:
“It is not for any Court, while referring a matter to a co-ordinate Bench, to consider the composition in which that Bench is sitting, at the relevant time. That is the sole prerogative of the learned Chief Justice of the Court concerned, in whom, alone, rests and vests the power of constituting Benches.”
The Court further directed that:
“The Registry of that Court shall not give effect to any transfer order by a Judge, other than the Chief Justice, until suitable/appropriate orders are passed by the Chief Justice.”
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has wide-ranging implications for judicial discipline and bail jurisprudence in India.
1. Strengthening the Chief Justice’s role
The decision reinforces the Chief Justice’s constitutional and administrative authority in controlling rosters and bench allocation, preventing fragmented approaches by individual judges.
2. Consistency in bail jurisprudence
Bail matters linked to the same FIR or accused often require consistent judicial handling. By emphasizing referral to the earlier judge (where appropriate), the Supreme Court strengthens continuity and coherence in bail adjudication.
3. Clarity on roster changes
The judgment makes it clear that roster changes cannot automatically become an excuse to avoid referral. The Chief Justice must decide, not the judge hearing the subsequent matter.
4. Preventing forum shopping
By clarifying that only the Chief Justice controls allocation, the Court reduces the scope for parties to attempt “forum shopping” or judge-hunting in sensitive bail matters.
5. Impact on High Court practice
High Courts across the country may now revisit their listing and transfer rules for bail matters to align with the Supreme Court’s directive.
Broader Legal Context
This case sits at the intersection of two important legal principles:
- Judicial discipline in bail cases – Earlier rulings like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) dealt with quashing proceedings, but in bail jurisprudence, consistency and propriety are equally critical.
- Separation of judicial and administrative powers – Judges decide cases, but the Chief Justice manages rosters. This division prevents confusion and ensures order in judicial administration.
The ruling reminds all courts that administrative orders cannot be casually assumed by judges; they are the Chief Justice’s sole prerogative.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Netisty Systems Pvt Ltd v. State Govt of NCT Delhi (2025 LiveLaw SC 962) is a significant reaffirmation of judicial propriety and the Chief Justice’s role in case allocation. By holding that it was improper for a High Court Judge to reject referral of a bail plea on the ground of roster change, the Court has clarified an important principle: judges decide cases, but only the Chief Justice decides benches.
This decision not only ensures consistency in bail jurisprudence but also strengthens public confidence in the fairness and discipline of the judicial process.
Also Read
Supreme Court Reprimands Magistrate for “Abdicating Jurisdiction” After Missing Deadline
