The doctrine of 'master of the roster' has repeatedly become a source of controversy within the higher judiciary. Discuss its constitutional basis and suggest reforms.

'Master of the roster' is the convention that the Chief Justice alone constitutes Benches and allocates cases. The Supreme Court affirmed in Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018) that this is the Chief Justice's exclusive prerogative [1]. The recurring disputes it generates call not for its dilution but for its regulation.

Constitutional and legal basis

• No express Article creates it; it flows from the Chief Justice's position as head of the court and from Court Rules framed under Articles 145 and 225, which vest administrative superintendence in the Chief Justice.
• Asok Pande (2018) grounded it in judicial discipline and institutional order — a multi-Bench court needs one authority to avoid conflicting listings [1].
• Its rationale is administrative efficiency and prevention of forum shopping.

Why it turns controversial

• The power is unguided and unreasoned — no written allocation policy, no record of deviations. The January 2018 press conference by four Supreme Court judges centred on exactly this.
• The 2026 Rajasthan High Court episode saw a sitting Supreme Court judge write to the CJI alleging selective transfer of cases by the Acting Chief Justice; the Collegium's response was a transfer and elevation under Article 222 [2], not an inquiry [6].
• The accountability gap is structural: removal lies only under Articles 124(4)/218 with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 [3], while the 1999 in-house procedure and the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life remain non-statutory and opaque [4].
• Perceived favouritism towards influential litigants erodes equality before law (Article 14).

Reforms

• Publish a written, subject-wise roster policy, with recorded reasons for any deviation.
• Randomised, automated allocation through the e-Courts platform for routine matters.
• Sensitive PILs listed by a collegium of the three senior-most judges, not the Chief Justice alone.
• Revive a statutory complaints mechanism on the lines of the lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 [5].
• Reasoned Collegium resolutions, so remedial transfers are seen as principled.

The doctrine is indispensable but must be exercised transparently. Codifying allocation norms and a credible complaints channel would strengthen, not weaken, judicial independence — for public confidence is the judiciary's only real source of authority.