In this article, Prathiksha Ravi, a law graduate from Institute of Law, Nirma University discusses the role of the Chief Justice of India as the ‘Master of the Roster’.
Introduction
Chief Justice of India is the head of the Judiciary in the country. He presides over the Supreme Court of India along with thirty other judges. The Chief Justice of India is appointed as a Supreme Court Judge as per Article 124 of the Constitution of India and then is recommended to the position of Chief Justice of India by the outgoing Chief Justice of India.
Mostly the senior most, based not on age but by the date of appointment or elevation to the Supreme Court and other factors gets appointed as the Chief Justice of India. This is the usual convention followed. This was overhauled during the Indira Gandhi regime when the then President appointed Justice A.N Roy over three other senior judges.
The Chief Justice of India is in charge not only of the judicial functions but also the administrative functions of the Supreme Court.
Role of the Chief Justice of India
The Chief justice of India (CJI) has various powers and functions. Some include:
- Swearing in of the President and Governors.
- Consultation by the President to the Chief Justice of India for the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
- Appointing ad-hoc Supreme Court judges under the Article 127 of the Constitution.
- Appoint retired judges to sit in the Supreme Court. [Article 128, Constitution of India]
- With the approval of the president, the Chief Justice of India can change the seat of the Supreme Court from Delhi to any other place. [Article 130, Constitution of India]
- The Appointment of officers and servants of the Supreme Court will be made by the Chief Justice of India. [Article 146, Constitution of India]
- Chief Justice of India has the power to move High Court Judges to other High Courts. [Article 222, Constitution of India]
- The Chief Justice of India can appoint an arbitrator to resolve a financial dispute between the Centre and the states.
Master of the Roster
Along with the above-mentioned powers and functions, the Chief Justice of India also has the power to constitute benches to hear cases in the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of India decides which judge will hear which case and when. The term “Master of the Roster” was coined by the present Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra. He declared that:
“ 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.”[1]
How is the Roster actually decided?
Chapter VI in the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure talks about the Roster of the Supreme Court. According to it, the Roster is prepared by Registrar under the orders of the Chief Justice of India. The principle behind the working of the Roster is to save judicial time.[2] The Registrar also lists the cases before the various benches as per the Roster in accordance with orders from the Supreme Court.[3] In the case where any judge transfers the case to be heard by another bench, the Registrar must place the said case before the Chief Justice of India for further decisions.
The Case that started it all
Two separate petitions were filed by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar. Both cases were put forward seeking a SIT probe into a corruption case and it was pleaded that the case not be put before Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra who had presided over this case previously and due to the allegations made against him. Justice Chelameswar ordered the formation of a five-judge Constitution Bench and hear the present case. Another petition filed by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms on the same case was transferred to the Chief Justice of India for “appropriate orders” by the two-judge bench.
The Constitution bench was formed, headed by the Chief Justice of India which heard the case which was shadowed by hue and cry from the Bar Association and other senior lawyers calling to hold the petitioners for contempt due to the accusation laid down against the Chief Justice of India himself.
Justice Dipak Misra, the Chief Justice of India held that “no advocate can ask the CJI not to preside over a case”. He also held that no provisions were given in any law that allowed the Chief Justice of India to be named in an FIR.
By nullifying Justice Chelameswar’s order, The Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra held the only the Chief Justice of India has the power to constitute a Constitutional bench to hear any case and held that “there cannot be any kind of command directing the CJI to constitute a Bench”.[2]
To add more on this, Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra also stated that no judge of the Supreme Court can take up cases on their own unless it is allotted by the Chief Justice of India.
Powers of the Chief Justice of India as “Master of the Roster”
By upholding the convention followed by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India declared himself as the “Master of the Roster”. The powers that are included with the said title are as follows:
- Only the Chief Justice of India has the right to direct the formation of any bench to hear cases.
- The Chief Justice has the power to allocate cases to judges, in short, he decides which judge hears which cases and when.
- The Roster of the Supreme Court is in the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of India
Why does it matter?
The process of allocation of cases is nothing but an administrative duty carried out by the Chief Justice of India. He decides which judge/bench gets which case. It is tremendously important which case goes before which Judge. Every judge has their own opinions formed based on their context and experience. For example, one judge can be pro-labour while the other may not, One judge may commute the death sentence while the other may uphold. In the mid-2000s, Justice Sinha and Justice Payasat were known for pronouncing differing judgements in the matters of the Death Penalty. While one commutes, the other upholds, the life of accused would be based on whose Court the case gets sent to by the Chief Justice of India.[3]
The unprecedented move by 4 judges against the ‘Master of the Roster’
The judgement which was passed by the Constitution Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India held that only the Chief Justice of India as the ‘Master of the Roster’ has the powers to allocate cases to the other judges of the Supreme Court and to form benches to decide cases.
This was challenged by 4 sitting senior judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Lokur, and Justice Kurian Joseph who wrote a letter of grievance to the Chief Justice of India stating their views against the administrative functioning of the Court in relation to allocating cases/benches.
They agreed to the principle that the Chief Justice of India is the ‘master of the roster’ and while confirming that, they held that this does not give any higher stature to the Chief Justice and as per the jurisprudence of the country, all the judges are equal in terms of hearing and adjudicating cases. The Chief Justice of India is just ‘first among equals’ in the case of administrative functions of the Court.
Contentions raised
- They reported against the manner by which the Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra was governing the administrative functions of the Supreme Court i.e. in the allocation of cases.
- The cases were allocated to the ‘judge’s preference’ or ‘will of the Chief Justice of India’ and not according to seniority or experience.
Conclusion
The disturbing situation where four sitting judges appearing to the press with their grievance against the Chief justice of India makes us question the effective functioning of the Supreme Court. In the absence of laws relating to the allocation of cases and formation of benches, the Chief Justice of India has taken it upon himself and declared himself to become the ‘Master of the Roster’ wherein he has the sole authority to allocate cases to the sitting judges and form benches according to cases.
This is quite disturbing especially if the Chief Justice of India is allocating the cases not based on experience or seniority but by selective-ness or his preference. Rules on such procedure must be formulated soon by the Legislature to avoid a centralised system from taking afloat.
References
[1] The Hindu Explains: ‘master of the roster’, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-master-of-the-roster/article22437561.ece (Date of Visit: 05/02/2018, Time of Visit: 11:31 am IST)
[2] Chapter VI, Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ppop2017.pdf [Date of Visit: 09/02/2018 Time of Visit: 7:20 pm IST]
[3] Chapter XIII, Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ppop2017.pdf [Date of Visit: 09/02/2018 Time of Visit: 7:20 pm IST]
[2] The Hindu, ‘Constitution Bench establishes CJI’s dominance as master of roster’ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/constitution-bench-establishes-cjisdominance-as-master-of-roster/article20102631.ece (Date of Visit: 05/02/2018 Time of Visit: 12:00 pm IST)
[3] The Indian Express, ‘Master and the roster’ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-judiciary-chief-justice-jasti-chelameswar-master-and-the-roster-5024588/ (Date of Visit: 05/02/2018 Time of Visit: 4:48 pm IST)
The Hindu, ‘Constitution Bench establishes CJI’s dominance as master of roster’ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/constitution-bench-establishes-cjisdominance-as-master-of-roster/article20102631.ece (Date of Visit: 05/02/2018 Time of Visit: 12:00 pm IST)
