No Bench Can Hear a Case Unless Assigned Per Roster or Specially Assigned to Bench by Chief Justice | SC

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Bablu Sonkar - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 354 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent filed a writ petition for quashing a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In the said writ, there was no interim relief granted pending the hearing of the petition.

A roster Bench finally heard the writ petition and reserved judgment. Later on, a writ petition filed by the respondent was listed for further hearing. The Bench recorded that there were similar matters involving the same issue and its judgment would impact other cases which were pending.

Consequently, the bench directed that judgment was to be de-reserved and the petition to be heard afresh along with other connected matters and decided together in accordance with the law. Meanwhile, the bench directed that the petitioner be released on bail.

It was noted that even though there was no prayer made by the respondent for the grant of bail, the Bench granted bail for releasing the Respondent. Even if such a prayer had been made, the Bench could not have heard prayer for bail. Only the roster Bench could have heard the same as these were all matters of propriety.

The roster notified by the Chief Justice was not an empty formality. All the Judges were bound by the same.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the part of the impugned order granting bail was to be set aside. Further, the respondent was permitted to move the roster bench by filing an application for interim relief/grant of bail and such application would be entertained by the High Court, only after the respondent surrenders.