In recent times, the master of roster controversy has emerged in the Supreme Court.
This issue is focussed on Chief Justice of India’s absolute power on the judicial administration.
What are the significance of master of roster?
Master of Roster is a judge appointed by the SC to list out the allocation of cases to different judges, for preventing two different benches from hearing the same kind of case.
The Roster will allow for effective case management, by allocating similar cases to judges with more experience.
Last year, the SC through few judgements, formalised the “convention” that the CJI is Sui generis (unique) and hence the master of roster.
What events led to the judgements regarding issue of roster?
Earlier in 2017, four senior most judges of the SC had blamed the present CJI for selectively allotting cases to preferred benches.
In response to that, the CJI published a new subject wise roster for allocation of cases.
This allocation, did little to pacify the judges as the CJI allocated most important public litigations matters to himself.
Following this, a verdict responded to the criticism by declaring that the CJI is only a first among the equals as a judge.
But the bench also agreed that no one, even the fellow judges of SC can question the powers of CJI as the court’s top administrator.
Final judgement confirmed that the CJI’s dominance over the roster was necessary to protect the SC from anarchy.
What are the concerns of the SC judgements?
There is a deterioration in the unwritten and righteous custom that the law of the land is supreme.
Concentration of immense powers on a single person is harmful for the nation and is also against the principles of democracy.
The issues triggering these judgements are also concerning as the cases were relating to allegations of a conspiracy to bribe SC judges.
Previous norms of pronouncing sensitive judgements by consulting with collegium also will get affected as the CJI will solely decide on cases as well as judgements.
