The 'Master of the Roster' principle ensures administrative efficiency but raises transparency concerns. Analyse.

The 'Master of the Roster' principle gives the Chief Justice of India (CJI) alone the power to constitute Benches and allocate cases. The Supreme Court upheld it in Asok Pande (2018) [1] and Shanti Bhushan (2018) [2]. Its roots lie in Article 145 rule-making. The principle keeps listing decisive, but it concentrates discretion in one office.

Administrative efficiency: the case for the principle

• One point of control: Shanti Bhushan held that "Chief Justice" cannot be read as a collegium for allocating cases, because consulting several judges every day would make case management unworkable [2].
• Quick fixes for listing problems: A contempt plea by retired CAPF officers was struck off the cause list despite a judicial order to list it. Within the same day, CJI Surya Kant set up a Special Bench (Justices Mishra and Bhuyan) to hear it [3].
• Protects institutional integrity: Central allocation stops litigants from picking a favourable Bench (bench-hunting). It also keeps judges from assigning cases to themselves, as the CJI is first among equals [1].

Transparency concerns: the case against unchecked discretion

• Opacity: There are no statutory criteria for sending sensitive matters to particular Benches. This fed the 2018 crisis, when four senior judges publicly questioned how cases were being allocated.
• Conflict of interest: Petitioners in Shanti Bhushan argued that one person's unguided discretion could be used to shape outcomes in politically sensitive cases [2].
• The Registry answers to no one: In the CAPF case, the Registry (the court's administrative staff) dropped a case that a Bench had ordered listed. The Bhuyan–Chandurkar Bench had to ask the Registry to explain why [3]. The administrative side overrode the judicial side.
• Enforcement suffers: When contempt pleas drop off the list, the court's verdicts against the executive lose force. Retired petitioners lose the most, because relief that comes late may never reach them [3].

Analysis The problem is not that the CJI holds this power. The problem is that the power is exercised without codified norms. Shanti Bhushan itself said administrative power must meet the standard of "fairness in action" [2].

Way forward

Codified norms → published roster → random/automated listing
        ↓                                   ↓
Registry answerable to Bench orders ← written reasons for deviations

Flow: from discretion to accountable discretion

The principle is still needed to keep a docket of this size moving. It can be kept and made more accountable by codifying allocation norms in the Supreme Court Rules, publishing subject-wise rosters, and having the Registry record written reasons whenever it departs from a Bench's order. These steps would bring the power in line with Article 14's bar on arbitrariness and strengthen public trust in the judiciary.