CJI is the 'Master of roster'

  

• Earlier, the Constitution Bench declared, on Nov 10, 2017, that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of India to decide what case has to be heard by which judge.
• The Constitution Bench held that “there cannot be any kind of command directing the CJI to constitute a Bench”. The Bench held that no judge can take up or post matters on his own. That authority is the Chief Justice's exclusive domain.
• The judicial institution would crumble if every judge acts like the Chief Justice of India.
• Judges have to act within their parameters set down by rules and precedents of the Supreme Court to protect judicial integrity and decorum.
• Constitution Bench recorded that the CJI is indeed the first among equals on the judicial side, but on the administrative side, he is the master of the roster.

  

• The judges acknowledge the CJI is the master of the roster.
• Given the context of the January 12, 2018 press conference by rebel 4 judges, the judges also feel that there was a need to make the assignment of cases more transparent, even though the CJI could reserve the right for keeping to himself hearing on certain extraordinarily important cases of national importance. 
• The four senior judges had said that listing of the PILs on judge Loya’s death before a select bench headed by a “junior” judge pushed them to hold the press conference for highlighting the systemic irregular manner in which successive Chief Justices of India have assigned important cases to handpicked benches headed by junior judges.
• There is a not a single judge who supported the four senior judges’ idea of holding a press conference to highlight the grievance.
• The CJI and judges are also aware that despite a roster system, there would always be room for a judge to be dissatisfied about the nature of the cases getting allocated to him/her and could still go ahead and hold a press conference airing grievances.
• The novel way of “discharging debt to the nation” through a press conference could turn out to be contagious, with personal ambitions and perceived irregularities fueling similar occurrences in the high courts, which have far greater number of judges than the apex court and, thus, greater possibility of disagreement with the chief justices.

Read SC Judges revolt raises more questions