Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra - 2025 INSC 1460 - States Reorganisation Act - Judiciary - Judicial Review - Administrative Matters

States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Section 51 - The power under Section 51(3) is an independent and continuing power vested in the Chief Justice of a High Court to appoint additional places of sitting for the more convenient transaction of judicial business, subject to the approval of the Governor. The exercise of this power is not dependent upon the establishment of a permanent Bench under Section 51(2), nor is it constrained by administrative decisions taken in the past under different circumstances - The power of the Union Government under Section 51 (2) would be available at all times, and we expressly make it clear that exercise of power under Section 51 (3) would not denude or dilute such power of the Union Government under Section 51(2) of the Act in the facts of the case- The Union Government would be at liberty to exercise such power if it deems fit, notwithstanding the power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 51 (3) of the Act. (Para 55) [Context: SC upheld the notification appointing Kolhapur as a place at which the Judges and Division Courts of the Bombay High Court may sit]

Constitution of India - Article 14 - Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It does not require absolute uniformity in administrative decision-making, nor does it prohibit reasonable differentiation based on relevant considerations-Differential treatment, when founded on objective considerations, does not offend Article 14. (Para 46)

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review in matters involving administrative and policy decisions - Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not with the merits of the decision itself. Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative choices, nor do they substitute their own views for those of the authority entrusted with the discretion by law. (Para 42)

Administrative Law- administrative and policy decisions do not attain finality for all time to come. They remain open to reconsideration as circumstances evolve. The passage of time, the accumulation of demand, improvement in infrastructure, changes in connectivity, and shifts in litigation patterns may legitimately warrant a fresh assessment. A subsequent decision taking a different view, when informed by changed conditions, does not, by itself, render the exercise arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 40)

Judiciary - Chief Justice is the master of the roster and that the allocation of judicial work is an exclusive prerogative of the Chief Justice. That principle extends, in substance, to decisions concerning the sittings of the Court, which are intimately connected with the distribution and management of judicial work. (Para 36)

Precedents - While dismissal of SLP does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, it lends finality to the judgment and adds weight to the view. (Para 33)

Interpretation of Statutes - Courts cannot import into the statute a limitation which the legislature has consciously chosen not to enact. To do so would be to substitute judicial apprehension for legislative judgment, a course impermissible in constitutional adjudication. (Para 27)