Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India through its Registrar, (2018) 8 SCC 396

Bench

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court:

• Justice Dipak Misra
• Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
• Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
• Justice Ashok Bhushan
• Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Facts

• The case was filed by Shanti Bhushan, a senior advocate and former Law Minister, challenging the absolute discretionary power of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as the “Master of the Roster” in the allocation of cases.
• Bhushan argued that the power to allocate cases should be exercised collectively by a collegium of judges, rather than being the exclusive prerogative of the CJI.
• The petition stemmed from concerns over alleged arbitrary allocation of cases and the lack of transparency in the Supreme Court’s internal functioning.
• The case was filed after a letter written by four senior Supreme Court judges (Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, and Kurian Joseph) became public, raising concerns over the CJI’s case allocation powers.

Issues

• Whether the Chief Justice of India is the sole authority for the allocation of cases as the “Master of the Roster”.
• Whether the power to allocate cases should be exercised collegially rather than solely by the CJI.
• Whether the principles of transparency and accountability require a change in the existing system.

Ratio Decidendi

• The Supreme Court upheld that the CJI, as the head of the institution, has the exclusive authority to allocate cases and constitute benches.
• The Court ruled that the CJI is an institution in himself, and his discretion in bench formation is essential for judicial discipline and smooth functioning.
• The Court rejected the argument for a collegium-based approach, stating that vesting this power in a collective body would create administrative difficulties and delays.
• The Court clarified that the CJI’s role as “Master of the Roster” is derived from the Supreme Court Rules and past precedents.

Observations

• The Supreme Court noted that the power to allocate cases must be exercised judiciously and in a fair manner, ensuring that no impression of bias or favoritism arises.
• It reaffirmed that the CJI is the first among equals and is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the efficient functioning of the Supreme Court.
• While maintaining the status quo, the Court acknowledged the need for greater transparency in the Supreme Court’s internal functioning.

Decision

• The Supreme Court dismissed Shanti Bhushan’s petition, ruling that the CJI alone has the authority to allocate cases and constitute benches.
• The Court held that the existing system does not violate constitutional principles, and the CJI’s powers as “Master of the Roster” are necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Important Terms

1. Master of the Roster – A term used to describe the CJI’s exclusive authority to allocate cases and constitute benches in the Supreme Court.
2. Judicial Independence – The principle that the judiciary must function without external interference, including interference in internal court administration.
3. Collegium System – A system in which senior judges collectively decide on judicial appointments; Bhushan proposed a similar approach for case allocation.
4. Separation of Powers – The doctrine ensuring distinct roles for the executive, legislature, and judiciary; Bhushan argued that the CJI’s unchecked power violated this principle.
5. Judicial Transparency – The idea that court processes, including case allocation, should be open and accountable to the public and legal community.