Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, on Thursday, firmly dissuaded oral mentions for case listings during a crowded court session. Addressing lawyers seeking hearing dates, Justice Khanna stated:
“We will not allow oral mentioning. All emails are reviewed, and decisions on listing are taken accordingly. Some requests are allowed, and some are rejected. Take it in your stride.”
Role of the CJI as Master of the Roster
The CJI reiterated his role as the “master of the roster,” emphasizing that decisions regarding case allocation and bench formation rest exclusively with him in his administrative capacity. He underscored that such matters are determined following established norms and practices, reinforcing the judiciary’s adherence to procedural discipline.
The issue of case listings and allegations of preferential treatment has been a longstanding concern in the Supreme Court. Past CJIs, including Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, faced similar criticism. Justice Chandrachud, in response to allegations during his tenure, remarked:
“All judges are to be treated as equal on the judicial side. It is surprising that some lawyers want their cases listed before specific judges.”
The controversy over case assignment dates back to January 2018, when four senior judges—Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph—held an unprecedented press conference. They accused then CJI Dipak Misra of selectively assigning politically sensitive cases to preferred benches.
Historical Context and the Master of the Roster Principle
The 2018 press conference followed disputes over a medical admissions scam, where Justice Chelameswar’s directive to list the case before a five-judge bench was overturned by CJI Misra. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings in April and July 2018 upheld the principle that the CJI alone holds authority over case allocation and bench formation. A plea by former law minister Shanti Bhushan, advocating collegium consultation in these matters, was also rejected.
Under current rules, cases are allocated to judges based on their roster as determined by the CJI. This ensures consistency in handling cases while reducing perceptions of bias. The system aims to balance transparency with the judiciary’s need for efficiency.
Justice Khanna’s firm stance against oral mentions reflects his intent to maintain a structured and impartial case listing process. While his approach signals a commitment to transparency and adherence to norms, it underscores the delicate balance required in a judiciary where every decision is subject to scrutiny for accountability and fairness.
The controversies surrounding case allocation highlight the complexities of judicial administration, underscoring the importance of discipline and impartiality in upholding the credibility of the justice system.