Whether the master of roster must be deemed to include five senior-most judges of the

Supreme Court?
The ‘Master of the Roster’ denotes the privilege of the Chief Justice of India to constitute
Benches to hear cases as well as when the cases would be listed for hearing; assuming that
the incumbent Chief Justice will always be entirely honest and maintain the highest standards
of integrity. The ‘master of roster’ controversy is focused on the absolute administrative
power of the Chief Justice of India to allot cases to his colleagues in the Supreme Court. Over
the past few months, the Supreme Court, through two back-to-back judgments, have
formalized the “convention” that the Chief Justice of India is sui generis (unique) in his
discretion to decide which case in the Supreme Court goes to which judge. Both judgments,
delivered by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra, agree that he is only a first
among the equals as a judge, but none, even his fellow judges, can question his powers as the
court’s top administrator.

The Chief Justice is only “first among equals.” However, on the administrative side, he is the
“Master of the Roster”; that is, “he alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the
Court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted.” Consequently:

“Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the
matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate,
there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the
Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the Bench. We
reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.”

One such duty is the determination of the bench. In India, the HCs and SC follow the roster
system to allot cases.1 This system lists out which judges or benches are to hear matters
pertaining to a particular subject matter or area of law. 2 The determination of roster is done
by the CJI for the SC. This power of the Chief Justice is derived jointly from the Indian
Constitution, Supreme Court Rules and judicial precedents. The Indian Constitution, under
Articles 145(3) and (4) dictates the minimum number of judges required to constitute a bench
ruling on an important question of law, generally and for a petition under Article 143.3

1
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1344 (India); Campaign for Judicial Accountability
and Reforms v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 589 (India).
2
Supreme Court of India, Roster of the work for fresh cases, The Order of Hon‘ble Chief Justice of India w.e.f.
05-02-2018, till further orders.

3
INDIA CONST. art. 145.
In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand,4 a full bench held that the power to constitute
Division Benches and decide what cases these Benches will hear is a power that rests solely
with the Chief Justice of the High Court. No Single or Division Bench of the High Court can
give directions to the Registry which are contradictory to that of the Chief Justice’s.5

Recently, this case6 was affirmed by a constitutional bench presided over by the CJI in its
order passed in the matter of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of
India.7 It was held in the order that the principle in Prakash Chand must apply proprio vigore
to the Supreme Court. Thus, in light of the Supreme Court Rules 8 and Article 145(2) and (3)
of the Indian Constitution, the Chief Justice of India is the Master of the Roster, and therefore
the sole authority on constitution of benches and allocation of cases to the Benches so
constituted.

Additionally, even the SC’s Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure 9 give power to the
CJI to direct the Judicial Registrar to prepare a roster of cases.10

In a recent order passed in the case of CJAR v. Union of India,11 the SC relied on Prakash
Chand12 and the aforementioned rules to declare that the CJI had the sole authority to decide
the roster for cases in the SC.

The leading case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,13 held that even constitutional
authorities must adhere to non-arbitrary practices as envisaged in Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution.14 Further, even Article 145 lays an emphasis on transparency under clause (4). 15
However, in reality, the Constitution gives the Chief Justice almost unrestricted power when
it comes to allotment of cases. The letter drafted by the four seniors most judges of the SC
opens a whole new world of public discourse and cannot be done away with.

4
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1344 (India).
5
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1344 (India).
6
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1344 (India).
7
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 589 (India).
8
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Gazette of India, Section III(1), Order 6, Rule 2, (May 29, 2014).
9
Supreme Court of India, Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017,
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/practice-and-procedure (last visited Apr 1, 2019).
10
Supreme Court of India, Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017, Chapter 5,
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/practice-and-procedure (last visited Apr 1, 2019).
11
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 589 (India).
12
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1344 (India).
13
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).
14
Justice GC Bhakuria, Master of Roster – Constitutional Limitation and Way Forward, LIVE LAW (Jan. 15,
2019, 12:28 IST), http://www.livelaw.in/master-of-roster-constitutional-limitation-way-forward/#_ftn3.
15
V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 568 (12th ed. 2016)
Former Law Minister Veerappa Moily sees the “well settled principle that Chief Justice is
the master of the roster” differently. “He is only the captain of the team. It is only judicial
wisdom which ultimately brings everyone together. There are certain conventions and
precedents governing the functioning of the collegium, judiciary and allocation of duties.
Even the CJI cannot transgress that,”.

To justify its reasoning that the Chief Justice of India is administratively supreme, the two
verdicts — in November 2017 and April this year — refer to Rule 1 of the Supreme Court
Rules of 2013, which indicates that the Chief Justice of India would nominate the judges who
would constitute a Bench to hear a cause, appeal or case.

The Supreme Court further applies a Rajasthan High Court judgment which holds that the
Chief Justice is the master of the roster. The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, in
November 2017, held that the High Court’s judgment “must apply proprio vigor as regards
the power of the Chief Justice of India.”

The CJI is always the senior-most judge of the court, except with an isolated instance. It has,
therefore, been said that on the judicial side, the CJI is only first among equals. 16 But
following the judgment of the three bench in Prakash Chand,17 it has further been held that
as far as the roster is concerned, which is an administrative function, the Chief Justice is the
‘Master of the Roster’ and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the benches of the court
and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. It has been clarified by the Constitution
Bench that this has also been the convention of the Supreme Court and as such is the law. It
has been clarified that the convention is followed because of judicial discipline and decorum.
It has been emphatically clarified that “Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the Master of
the Roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches”. One thing is certain that such
power can be exercised only subject to the constitutional limitations, particularly, Article 14
of the Constitution.

The CJI’s position is such that it projects strong ‘centralized tendencies’ with no concurrent
accountability mechanism in sight. Though the Constitution of India mentions about the rules
for regulating the practice and procedure of the court18 and empowers the Parliament to make
law in respect of the Constitution, organization, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme

16
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196 para 6
17
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 1.
18
Article 145(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Court19, the Parliament has not made any law so far with regard to formation of benches or
laying down the principles for distribution of judicial functions, the CJI and other judges
exercise the same powers.

It is well settled that “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness
and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as
philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14
like a brooding omnipresence”.20 This principle equally applies to all the constitutional
authorities. In the case of Maru Ram v Union of India21, the Constitution Bench has held that
where a power is vested in a very high authority, it must be presumed that the said authority
would act properly and carefully after an objective consideration of all the aspects of the
matter, and further, the higher the power, the more cautious would be its exercise.

The expression 'Chief Justice' has been interpreted by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr.22, (known as the "First Judges' case") to mean a
'Collegium'. This was done to ensure a guard against the absolute power being conferred upon
the Chief Justice alone. Rule 1 thereof provides that it is the Chief Justice who is to nominate
the Judges who would constitute a Bench to hear a case, appeal or matter. Where a reference
is made to a larger Bench, the Bench making the reference is required to refer the matter to
the Chief Justice who will constitute the Bench. Rule 1, thus, empowers the Chief Justice to
constitute a Division Bench as well as a larger Bench.

The ultimate purpose is to dispense justice, which is the highest and noblest virtue. Again, in
this role, the 'Chief Justice' gets the authority and responsibility for the administration of the
Court, which gives him the ultimate authority for determining the distribution of judicial
work load. In Indian context, this power was given statutory recognition by Section 214(3) of
the Government of India Act, 1935.

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which have been framed in exercise of such a power empowered
the Chief Justice to constitute the Benches and list particular matters before such Benches.
Article 146 reaffirms the position of the Chief Justice of India as the head of the institution.
From an institutional perspective the Chief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme

19
Article 246 read with Entry 77 of the Union List in the Constitution of India, 1950.
20
Article 14 was explored and brought to light in Royappa case, (1975) 1 SCC 485, and it was reaffirmed and
elaborately by the Supreme Court in maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 95, pp/ 283-84. Para 7.
21
Maru Ram v Union of India , [(1981) 1 SCC 107]
22
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., (1981) Supp. SCC 87
Court. In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches the Chief Justice has an
exclusive prerogative.

In State v. Devi Dayal23, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the scope
and powers of the Chief Justice under the Constitution with particular reference to Rule 1
Chapter V of the Rules of that Court (which is in pari materia with Rule 54 of The Rajasthan
High Court Rules, 1952) and held : per Mukerji, J. : "...It is clear to me, on a careful
consideration of the constitutional position, that it is only the Chief Justice who has the right
and the power to decide which Judge is to sit alone and which cases such Judge can decide;
further it is again for the Chief Justice to determine which Judges shall constitutes Division
Benches and what work those Benches shall do. Under the rules of this Court, the rule that I
have quoted above, it is for the Chief Justice to allot work to judges and Judges can do only
such work as is allotted to them.

In State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik24, referring to the power of the Chief
Justice to make roster, this court opined: "The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He has
full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court
which flows not only from the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the
Act, but inheres in him in the very nature of things."

Again, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd, v.
The Registrar of Chits25, opined: "The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has the inherent power to
allocate the judicial business of the High Court including who of the Judges should sit alone
and who should constitute the Bench of two or more Judges. No litigant shall, upon such
Constitution of a Bench or allotment of a case to a particular Judge of the Court will have a
right to question the jurisdiction of the Judges or the Judge hearing the case. No person can
claim as a matter of right that this petition be heard by a single Judge or a Division Bench or
a particular single Judge or a particular Division Bench. No Judge or a Bench of Judges will
assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice."

23
State v. Devi Dayal, AIR 1959 All 421
24
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, AIR 1982 SC 1198
25
in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd, v. The Registrar of Chits, (1991) 2 L.W. 80