CJI ‘master of the roster’, reiterates Supreme Court

Judgment reiterates legal position on controversial issue

: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the “master of the roster,” the Supreme Court reaffirmed on Friday, declining to accept former law minister Shanti Bhushan’s suggestion.

NEW DELHI: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the “master of the roster,” the Supreme Court reaffirmed on Friday, declining to accept former law minister Shanti Bhushan’s suggestion that the CJI consult his collegium colleagues — the top four judges after him in seniority –in allocating cases to various benches.

Describing the CJI as “first among equals,” a bench of justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said although the constitution was silent on the CJI’s role as the master of the roster, his power was based on a healthy practice and “convention aimed at maintaining discipline and decorum.” The judges wrote separate but concurring verdicts.

The bench also lamented the “erosion of credibility of judiciary,” calling it the “greatest threat” to the institution. “What is required of judges is changing. Judges walk the tight rope of independence,” read the order.

Friday’s judgment reiterates the legal position on the controversial issue that hit the headlines in November after a bench led by justice J Chelameswar ordered listing of a PIL related to a medical admission scam before a bench of the top five judges.

On the same day, CJI Dipak Misra set up a constitution bench

of five judges to declare that only the CJI could mark matters to various benches, setting aside Justice CHelameswar’s order.

On January 12, justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph addressed the media airing their grievances over the manner of allocation of cases by the CJI. Later, in a memorandum to the CJI, the four said that a committee of judges should allocate sensitive cases. Their stand was similar to what Bhushan pleaded before the court. In April 2018, again, a bench headed by CJI Misra upheld the authority of the CJI as the master of the roster to allocate cases and constitute benches. In his petition, Bhushan questioned the “absolute discretion” given to the CJI and contended that the master of the roster

cannot wield “unguided and unbridled” discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the CJI, who he said should not hand-pick benches of select judges or assign cases to particular judges.

Justice Sikri’s judgement on Friday spoke of the “eternal qualities” of a judge. “These are wisdom, patience, a sense of practical reality, fairness and balance, independence of mind and knowledge of law, moral courage or fortitude, and a total commitment that justice should be administered according to law,” the judge said. As the top court’s spokesperson, it is a judge’s duty to usher in and administer reform as a continuous process, Sikri said. “At the end of the day, it is the virtue of righteousness, impartiality, objectivity and scholarship which a Judge com- mands to ensure respectability to his judgment,” Justice Sikri wrote. SC said the CJI allocated cases considering a judge’s capacity and expertise and his wisdom in this regard cannot be questioned. “We live in an age of accountability. What is required of Judges is changing. Judgments of the Courts are widely discussed, debated and even criticised. In this age of technology, open society and liberal democracy coupled with varied nature of cases raising complex issues which are decided by the Courts, including ‘hard cases’ any outcome whereof may be susceptible to criticism, as both views may appear to be equally strong,” justice Sikri’s judgment stated.

Bhushan’s contention that as per a 1998 case pertaining to the appointment of judges the term “Chief Justice of India” meant the CJI and his four senior-most colleaques was not accepted.

The court said: “It is difficult to accept the prayer of the petitioner that the expression ‘Chief Justice’ appearing in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 be read as ‘Collegium’ of five senior most Judges for the purpose of allocating cases.”Reacting to Friday’s judgment, senior advocate Amrendra Sharan said: “There is no doubt that the CJI is the master of roster, but all powers should be exercised bonafidely.”