{"id":198193,"date":"2018-07-06T17:30:08","date_gmt":"2018-07-06T12:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=198193"},"modified":"2019-05-23T16:58:48","modified_gmt":"2019-05-23T11:28:48","slug":"cji-is-the-master-of-roster-chief-justice-cannot-be-read-as-collegium-for-allocation-of-matters-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/06\/cji-is-the-master-of-roster-chief-justice-cannot-be-read-as-collegium-for-allocation-of-matters-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"CJI is the Master of Roster; \u201cChief Justice\u201d cannot be read as \u201cCollegium\u201d for allocation of matters: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cIt is difficult to accept the prayer of the petitioner that the expression ‘Chief Justice’ appearing in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 be read as \u2018Collegium\u2019 of first five senior most Judges for the purpose of allocating the matters. At the same time, we feel that debate generated as a result has served its purpose.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Supreme Court:<\/strong> While deciding the writ petition that sought devising of a more transparent system in allocation of cases to Benches in the Apex Court, the Bench comprising of A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. relied heavily on a 3-Judge Bench decision in Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India<\/em><\/strong>, (2018) 5 SCC 341<\/a>, to hold that “ ‘Chief Justice in his individual capacity is the Master of Roster and it cannot read as Collegium of first three or five Judges. Thus, it is his prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the respective Benches<\/em>“. The petitioner, Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate was represented by Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave while K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General of India led the response.<\/p>\n

The writ petition was filed seeking the Court to clarify the administrative authority of Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases. At the outset, the petition acknowledged the legal principle that CJI is the Master of Roster and has the authority to allocate the cases to different Benches\/Judges of the Supreme Court. However, it was contended that this power is not to be used to assert any superior authority by the Chief Justice and the power is to be exercised in a manner that is fair, just and transparent. It was apprehended that keeping in view the predisposition of particular Judges, CJI may assign cases to those Judges to achieve a predetermined outcome. According to the petitioner, there was a need for devising a more rational and transparent system of listing and re-allocation of the matters to avoid any such possibilities. As per the petitioner, the matters need to be listed by strictly following the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which empower the Chief Justice to allocate certain cases exercising his discretionary powers. The petitioner submitted that in order to ensure that such a discretion is exercised in a fair manner, the expression ‘Chief\u00a0 Justice’ should be interpreted to mean ‘Collegium’ of first 5 Judges of the Supreme Court, as held by this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association v. Union of India<\/em><\/strong>, (1993) 4 SCC 441<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court after a meticulous consideration of all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perusal of various rules and the law including binding precedents, held that \u201cthe two most obvious functions of the \u2018Chief Justice\u2019 are to exercise judicial power as a Judge of the Court on equal footing as others, being \u2018among equals\u2019 and to assume responsibility of the administration of the Court<\/em>\u201d. The observations and opinions of the Hon\u2019ble Judges that gave a unanimous decision, while delivering separate opinions, are summarized hereinafter:<\/p>\n