SC shifts seven cases to bench of former law secretary to Narendra Modi

She is the first woman judge from the Gujarat High Court to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Before being appointed a judge, she served as the law secretary in the government of Narendra Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat from 2001 to 2014.

Sworn in as a Supreme Court justice on 31 August 2021, Bela Trivedi, 63, is currently the 16th in seniority out of the 34 Supreme Court Justices and one of the 17 presiding judges leading a bench.

In a report published on 7 December, Thursday on news portal Article 14 independent journalist Saurav Das claimed that seven cases have been transferred in the last four months before benches comprising Justice Trivedi or ones presided over in violation of rules.

The rules in the ‘Supreme Court Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, say “cases should be retained before the senior judge before whom the case was first listed or listed before a judge hearing a similar case”.

The seven cases referred to by Article 14 are as follows:

1. Umar Khalid’s bail plea 2. Petitions challenging provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)1967

3. Petitions challenging dismissal of a fresh investigation against former Tamil Nadu chief minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami for alleged involvement in a highway tender scandal

4. Two petitions connected to a skill development scam in which former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu is a co-accused

5. A petition connected with the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) probe in a disproportionate assets case against deputy chief minister of Karnataka D K Shivakumar

6. A medical bail plea filed by jailed Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji

7. A bail plea of Bhima-Koregaon violence case co-accused Mahesh Raut.

These cases were previously being heard by benches presided over by other senior judges, and in some of which Justice Trivedi was the accompanying judge.

“Petitions challenging the Tripura police’s action to book journalists and lawyers under UAPA over their social media posts and reports about the communal violence that took place in the state in the third week of October 2021 were being heard by the Chief Justice’s court. Tagged along with these were petitions challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the UAPA, which were pending before Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the Chief Justice,” the report states.

However, on 29 November 2023, all these matters were reallocated before a Justice Trivedi-led bench, bypassing 15 more senior judges.

When senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, one of the lawyers in the case of the Tripura police action against journalists, pointed this out and suggested that the bench ordered the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice’s bench for “clarification”, Justice Trivedi refused. “These matters have been listed before us,” Justice Trivedi was reported to have said. “We are bound to hear. If you have any reservations, you can mention before the CJI.”

The Supreme Court Judge’s Roster does not mention Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to be part of Justice Trivedi’s roster. Despite this, some challenges to the UAPA provisions which are PILs, including the one filed by the Foundation of Media Professionals, were shifted before her.

Deputy chief minister of Karnataka Shivakumar’s case is also one of those that shifted to a Justice Trivedi-led bench. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had challenged a 12 June 2023 decision of the Karnataka High Court that granted an interim stay on an investigation against Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.

The case was first listed on 22 September before Justice Bose’s bench, consisting of Justice Trivedi. However, on the third date of hearing—7 November—the case was pulled out from Justice Bose’s court and listed before a Justice Trivedi-led bench, despite Justice Bose not having retired or made a specific order to recuse.

Just three days after Shivakumar’s case was listed before Justice Trivedi’s court, a final order was passed in the CBI’s petition. The bench refused to interfere with the High Court’s interim relief to Shivakumar but asked the High Court to decide the CBI’s application for removing the interim stay on Shivakumar’s investigation “preferably within two weeks”.

Several senior lawyers including Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan have voiced concern at the disregard of established rules, convention and norms.

The controversy has also revived the old debate whether only one man, the Chief Justice of India, should exercise control over the Registry or if it is a better idea to have the collegium or a group of Supreme Court justices to exercise the authority of the ‘Master of the Roster’ collectively. Collective responsibility and majority decisions will, if not anything else, reduce the pressure on one man.