NEW DELHI, February 19: In a judgement meant to bring in greater judicial discipline in high courts, the Supreme Court today held that the chief justice (CJ) was the sole authority in deciding matters of administration and none of his brother judges could legally usurp his functions or power.``Under the constitutional scheme (Article 229), the chief justice of the high court is the supreme authority and other judges, so far as officers and servants of the high court are concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side,'' a division bench comprising Justices S Saghir Ahmed and G B Pattanaik have held in a 26 page judgement.The court was delivering judgement on an appeal by the Rajasthan high court against an order by a two judge bench of that court directing the registrar to submit a report on the decision of the CJ to appoint officers on deputation for reconsideration before the full court.``Since power of appointment which vests absolutely in the chief justice cannot be exercised by anyother judge of the high court, other judge or judges, cannot exercise that power even indirectly as has been attempted to be done in the present case,'' the judges held.The court held that the impugned direction by the division bench of the high court was patently contrary to the mandate of Article 229 vesting the high court administration in the CJ and purports to encroach upon his authority.The apex court observed that ``some judges of the high courts, undoubtedly, will become chief justice in their own turn one day,'' but it was imperative under constitutional discipline that they work in traquility.``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,'' the judges said in their observations.The court held that just asthe Chief Justice of India was the supreme authority in the matter of Supreme Court establishment including its office staff and officers, so also the Chief Justice of the high court was the sole authority in these matters and no other judge or officer could legally usurp those administrative functions or power.The judges held that apart from the fact that the impugned directions by the high court division bench to the registrar were contrary to Article 229, they also had the effect of negating the impact of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of service of staff) Rules, 1953 made by the CJ in exercise of power conferred by Article 229.The court made it clear that the rule making power for regulating service conditions of officers and servants of the high court was subject only to the restriction that if it related to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to have the approval of the State governor. Further the rules made by the CJ would operate subject to the conditions made in any lawpassed by the State legislature.The judges held that a judge of the high court individually or all the judges sitting collectively, as in a full court, cannot either alter the constitutional provisions or the rules made by the CJ.
