Examine the ethical dimensions of administrative discretion vested in an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court.

Under Article 223, when the office of Chief Justice of a High Court falls vacant, another judge of that Court performs its duties [1]. With the office comes wide administrative discretion — constituting benches, fixing the roster, listing cases — power that is largely unreviewable, so its restraint is ethical before it is legal.

Nature of the discretion

• Master of the roster: the Chief Justice alone constitutes benches and allocates subjects, a convention affirmed in Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018) [2].
• Listing and urgency: deciding which matter is heard, and when, can decide the outcome in effect.
• Internal administration: committee assignments, work distribution and recommendations on postings of judicial officers.

Ethical dimensions engaged

• Impartiality in appearance: the Supreme Court's Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) insists that justice must not merely be done but be seen to be done [3].
• Probity and conflict of interest: allegations that listings were tilted towards influential litigants, as recently raised regarding the Rajasthan High Court's Acting Chief Justice [4], corrode public trust even before proof.
• Accountability with independence: a temporary, often pre-retirement tenure weakens conventional restraints, while shielding discretion from scrutiny in the name of independence risks unaccountable power.
• Natural justice: the accused judge equally deserves a hearing, not trial by public debate [4].

Safeguards and way forward

• The In-House Procedure (1999) empowers the CJI to receive and inquire into complaints against Chief Justices of High Courts — a remedy short of impeachment under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 [3][5].
• The Second ARC's report on Ethics in Governance urges codified conduct standards backed by credible institutional enforcement [6].
• Practically: published subject-wise rosters, automated listing, and reasoned deviations.

Administrative discretion in a High Court is thus a fiduciary trust, not a personal prerogative. Strengthening internal mechanisms with transparent, rule-based listing would let the judiciary regulate itself credibly — preserving both the independence guaranteed by the Constitution and the public confidence on which that independence ultimately rests.