Chief Justice as Master of the Roster

The master of the roster is the Chief Justice’s authority to determine which judges will hear particular cases and when those cases will be listed. It is an administrative power needed for the orderly functioning of a court, not a superior judicial power over other judges. In the Supreme Court, this authority belongs to the Chief Justice of India acting in that capacity.

Legal basis and scope

The Constitution does not use the expression “master of the roster”. The authority is supported by Article 145, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and judicial precedent.

• The Chief Justice constitutes benches, allocates cases among them and determines the composition of larger benches, subject to constitutional, statutory and procedural requirements.
• The Chief Justice of a High Court similarly controls allocation of judicial work within that High Court, as recognised in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998).
• In Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the Supreme Court affirmed that roster authority belongs to the Chief Justice rather than to the collegium.

Meaning of the Chief Justice’s primacy

Roster primacy is administrative. In judicial decision-making, the Chief Justice remains first among equals, and each judge exercises independent judicial authority while sitting on a bench.

• The Chief Justice cannot administratively overrule another judge’s judicial order or predetermine how an assigned bench will decide a case.
• The arrangement creates a single institutional authority for case distribution, promotes administrative coordination and limits competing claims over bench formation.

Accountability concerns

Because bench composition can affect the handling of important cases, roster discretion must be exercised consistently with judicial independence, institutional integrity and fairness.

• Published, subject-wise rosters and stable allocation norms can reduce arbitrariness and perceptions of selective listing.
• Transparent procedures should balance accountability with the operational flexibility needed to address urgency, conflicts of interest and judges’ availability.