The Supreme Court overturned on October 10 the order of its two-judge bench, issued on October 9, to set up a larger bench to hear a graft case allegedly involving judges, asserting that Chief Justice of India was the "master of the court". The showdown is said to be centered around the issue of supremacy of constituting a bench in which the authority of Chief Justice Dipak Misra was allegedly undermined by a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer, which had on October 9 set up a five-judge bench to hear a case of alleged bribery of judges in which a retired judge of Orissa High Court, Justice Ishrat Masroor Quddusi, is an accused. Justice Chelameswar, who is the senior-most judge after the CJI, had ordered the setting up of the five-judge bench of top judges of the apex court as a petition by an NGO and an advocate had claimed there were allegations against Justice Misra. However, the CJI on October 10 set up a five-judge bench headed by him and overturned the October 9 order of the two-judge bench, saying the Chief Justice had the sole prerogative of setting up a bench and allocating matters. This five-judge bench, comprising Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, besides the CJI, assembled at 3 PM on October 10 and commenced an urgent hearing on the question as to who can direct the setting up of a bench of specific judges to hear a particular matter. "There cannot be a command or an order directing the CJI to constitute a bench of specific strength," the bench said while making it clear that neither a two-judge nor a three-judge bench can direct the CJI to constitute a specific bench. "Needless to emphasise that no judge can take up a matter on its own unless allocated by the CJI as the CJI is master of the court," the bench said and annulled the decision of the two-judge bench, in the hearing which witnessed heated exchange of words between the judges and advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners. "Any order passed contrary to this order (by the constitution bench) should not hold the field and shall be treated to be annulled," the CJI said while refusing the request of a lawyer to bar the media from reporting the case, saying he believed in "freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of press". The bench said if the principle of law, judicial discipline and decorum of the court was not followed, there would be "anarchy" and "chaos" in the administration of justice as well as the functioning of the institution. Perturbed by Thursday's order, the CJI, without taking names of the concerned judges, said there were hundreds of matters listed in the court daily and if the orders were passed like this, then the court cannot function. Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), including its President R S Suri, vice-president Ajit Sinha, Secretary Gaurav Bhatia and several senior advocates including Ashok Bhan, Aman Sinha and others strongly countered the allegations levelled in the petitions and said strong action should be taken against any attempt to "browbeat" the judges. "Getting orders by terrorism should not be tolerated by this court. Strong action needs to be taken against any such attempt," SCBA members said while requesting the bench to initiate contempt proceedings in the matter. The hearing in the jam-packed courtroom saw allegations flying thick and fast with Bhushan even raising his pitch while asking the CJI to recuse himself from hearing the matter as his name has allegedly figured in the CBI's FIR. The CJI retorted by asking Bhushan, who was accompanied by advocate Kamini Jaiswal, one of the petitioners, to read the contents of the FIR and warned against losing his temper. "We have been giving you indulgence and you cannot deny that despite you levelling wild allegations against me. You can afford to lose your temper but we cannot", the CJI said. Bhushan, who was representing an NGO 'Campaign for Judicia