The Judiciary Unrest In India: A Critical Explication

The Supreme Court of India was witnessed to existential altercation within itself and the Executive from last couple of months, firstly the four Judges press-conference alleging CJI for exercising its power of Master of Roster authoritatively and arbitrarily, secondly the pronouncement of Judgment on the CJIs power as Master of Roster on the petition filed by Asok Pande, thirdly the impeachment motion notice to Rajya Sabha Chairman which was categorically rejected by him, stating reasons for rejection, fourthly the return of Collegium recommendation to elevate Uttrakhand High Court Chief Justice K.M. Joseph as a Judge of Supreme Court and lastly the moving of two MPs challenging Vice Presidents Order rejecting impeachment proceedings against CJI.

- Yash Mittal

Riding on the Roster: Is CJI’s power of forming Roster unbridled?

The apex court of the country consists of Chief Justice and its other puisne judges. In discharging the judicial functions the powers of the CJI and other Judges are same. On seniority basis the CJI is the highest judicial position in the country, therefore the position of the CJI is termed as “primus inter pares” by the court in the case Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform v. Union of India meaning first among equals which according to Marium Webster Dictionary is used as an honorary title for those who are formally equal to the other person but accorded unofficial respect, owing to their seniority in the office. But on administrative functions the Chief Justice of India enjoys the superior power to that of other Judges which is called as the “Master of the Roster” pronounced by the court in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan where the court laid down following principles:

i). That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases to the benches so constituted.

ii). That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.

iii). That till any determination made by the Chief Justices lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice.

iv). That the puisne Judges cannot “pick and choose” any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.