MASTER OF THE ROSTER

Master of the roster has always been a topic of heated debate on both the political and judicial grounds for reasons of allotment of cases to the different benches.

The Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and High Court are considered as the master of Roster. They have the authority to allocate the cases to the bench consisting of judges of the Supreme Court and High Court. This system is followed to maintain judicial decorum and discipline. They exercise this function in an administrative capacity. They are considered as first among the equals where all the judges are equal with the same judicial power and Chief Justice is the senior-most judges amongst all and it does not mean that the Chief Justice is superior to the other judges.

The puisne judges decide only those cases which are allotted to them by Chief Justice; they cannot decide which cases they want to hear. The Chief Justice has the sole discretion of deciding the same. He alone decides the strength of the judges for a particular case. However, he can keep in mind the speciality and experience of a particular judge in a particular type of cases before allotment. The different benches are constituted for hearing of different cases as there are a vast number of cases
pending in Supreme Court and High Courts.

According to the latest data as of 2018 total numbers of cases pending in the Supreme Court and High Courts are 54,013 and 4.2 million respectively. However, the constitutional bench consisting of five or more judges is made when a case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution. The concept of Public Interest Litigation has increased the number of pending cases. In order to decide the pending matters fast the importance of master of roster is significantly higher in India and in any other constitution of the world.

CASE LAWS

In Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, which is famously known as Second Judges Case, it was held that the Chief Justice should exercise his discretion of allotment of cases in a fair and transparent manner. He alone has the authority to decide the allocation of the cases but this power should be exercised in a fair and transparent manner.

Again in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India, it was held by Justice A.K. Sikri that Chief Justice would mean only an individual judge and not a collective bench of five judges. This individual judge will be known as a spokesperson of the court who will allocate the cases to his fellow judges as the master of the roster. Supreme Court has thus declared the Chief Justice to be the master of roster. Justice Sikri in his opinion quoted that “applaud us when we run, console us when we fall, cheer us when we recover, but let us pass on- for God’s sake let us pass on.” He also stated that the Supreme Court shall remain greater than the men and women who occupy them temporarily as the judges. He also highlighted that the Chief Justice has the moral responsibility towards his colleague’s judges and also the public at large while exercising his power as master of the roster while allocating the cases to different benches. He also listed some qualities which CJI should possess as the master of the roster which includes balance, fortitude, moral
courage and independence of mind. It is his duty to guide and administer reform as a continuous process. Article 145 of the Constitution of India talks about the rules of court etc. and it nowhere says that the CJI should mean collegium. Thus, the bench upholds that CJI has complete administrative authority in allocating the cases and forming the constitution benches.

If CJI is not considered as the master of roster and the authority of allocating the cases is to be decided by the collegium of five judges it will lead to chaos and will hamper the entire working of the courts. If collegium is made to allocate the cases then the judges would themselves decide
which case they want to hear which will further lead to internal strife. So, it is better than the Chief Justice alone should be given the power to allocate the cases to the different benches by keeping in mind the interest and expertise of a judge in a particular field.

RULING IN THE MATTER

The CJI would not be interpreted as a collegium of five senior-most judges while allocating the cases to the different benches. The CJI alone has the power of allocating the cases to his colleague judges by keeping in mind their interest, expertise and tenure. The CJI is the master of the roster in allocating, listing and re-allocating the cases. If this power is given to collegium then it will only create confusion, chaos and delays in dealing with important matters.

The courts in India have a large number of pending cases and the number of cases increases in the Supreme Court due to the concept of PIL. If the power of allocating the cases is given to the collegium then it will delay the important matters which are pending before and it will also lead to internal disputes between the judges. So, rather than constituting a bench for allocation of cases, it is better that CJI alone should exercise this power and other judges should work according to the cases which are allotted to them.

CHERRY JAIN
Former Intern, Indian Law Watch (2020)
B.A.LL.B, Chander Prabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law (Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)

CONTINUE READING

Petition to seeks direction for Government to allow event in memory of Bhagat Singh: Lahore High Court