master of roster supreme court judgment
shanti bhushan vs supreme court case summary
cji master of roster case 2018
roster power of chief justice of india
judicial transparency and case allocation
supreme court roster rules 2018
supreme court
Case Summary: Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2018) 8 SCC 396 | AIR 2018 SC 3287
Date of Decision: 6 July 2018
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan
Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=2362621
Law Points Raised:
- Scope of administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India as 'Master of Roster'.
- Interpretation of the term 'Chief Justice' in the context of case allocation and roster management.
- Demand to replace individual discretion with collegium-based decision-making for sensitive matter listings.
- Need for transparency, objectivity, and adherence to Supreme Court Rules, 2013 in listing cases.
- Constitutional implications of unchecked discretionary power under Articles 124, 145 and 32.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Chief Justice of India is the Master of the Roster and holds exclusive prerogative in allocation of cases and formation of benches.
- While the Constitution provides mechanisms for checks and balances, the practice of judicial discipline supports CJI’s role.
- The plea to redefine 'Chief Justice' as a collegium for administrative functions was not accepted.
- Rules under Article 145 support current practice of the CJI exercising roster powers individually.
- Though transparency and fairness are crucial, they do not necessitate altering the fundamental administrative structure.
Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, affirming that the Chief Justice of India remains the Master of the Roster. The Court did not accept the petitioner’s request to vest the power of roster formation in a collegium of senior-most judges. While acknowledging the importance of transparency, the Court upheld the existing constitutional and administrative structure.
Key Paragraph References:
- ¶ 2–3 – Scope of petition and admission of CJI’s role as Master of Roster
- ¶ 4–5 – Petitioner’s arguments on collective decision-making and Rule compliance
- ¶ 6–8 – References to First, Second and Third Judges’ cases on collegium and bias safeguards
- ¶ 9 – Comparative insights on global judicial systems and administrative roles
- Final Directions – Affirmation of CJI’s exclusive role in roster formation and case listing