From Master of the Roster to Master of all Judges?, The Hindu Editorial Analysis

Table of Contents

The Hindu Editorial Analysis: The Editorial Analysis of The Hindu Newspaper Editorial Articles aimed at simplifying various concepts relevant to the UPSC and other State PSC Exams. The Editorial Analysis helps in expanding the knowledge base as well as framing better quality mains answers. Today’s Hindu Editorial Analysis of ‘From Master of the Roster to Master of all Judges?’, discusses the recent decision of Chief Justice of India to restrict the implementation of Ritu Chhabria v. Union of India Judgement.

Supreme Court on Bail of Undertrials in News

In the case of Ritu Chhabria v. Union of India, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court recently upheld the right of an undertrial to be granted default bail if the investigation exceeds the statutory time limit and remains incomplete.

The court expressed disapproval of investigative agencies charging an accused despite the investigation being unfinished.
It clarified that the right to obtain bail is not invalidated by the mere filing of a preliminary charge-sheet.
The court concluded that an accused’s entitlement to seek default bail can only be terminated upon the completion of the investigation within the statutory time limit.

CJI Stay on Ritu Chhabria v. Union of India Judgement

In an unexpected development, the Court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) entertained a recall application filed by the Union of India against the aforementioned judgment.

Consequently, the CJI issued an interim order instructing courts to decide bail applications without considering the ruling in the case of Ritu Chhabria, albeit for a limited duration.
Essentially, by temporarily depriving the Division Bench’s decision of its precedential significance, the CJI indirectly halted the implementation of the verdict, despite lacking a direct association with it.

Associated Concerns with CJI’s Intervention

Typically, the Union of India’s only recourse would be to file a review petition, which is typically decided by the same Bench that delivered the initial judgment.

It was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to entertain a review petition.
The involvement of the CJI’s court would only be justified if another Bench, dealing with a separate matter, expressed disagreement with the legal principle established in the Ritu Chhabria case and referred it to the CJI for recommendation to a larger Bench.
There was no provision for filing a recall application against a judgment, especially before a completely different Bench. Such an action can be seen as bench fishing or forum shopping.
Therefore, by entertaining an intra-court appeal within the Supreme Court against an order issued by a Bench that did not include the CJI, the Court of the CJI has effectively introduced a mechanism that lacks legislative or constitutional support
The powers of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as the Master of the Roster are specifically intended for administrative purposes.
However, the recent order has extended the CJI’s powers into the judicial domain, establishing an unprecedented intra-court appellate mechanism within the Supreme Court that disregards the established procedure of a review petition.
This order has also weakened the clear boundary that prevents the Court of the CJI from assuming superiority over other Benches.

CJI’s Power in Comparison to Other Supreme Court Judges

In the constitutional framework, all judges of the Supreme Court possess equal judicial powers. However, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) holds specific administrative powers, such as forming Benches and assigning matters for reconsideration by a larger Bench.

The CJI is commonly referred to as the ‘Master of the Roster’ and is considered the first among equals in relation to fellow judges.
However, when sitting on a Bench, including the CJI, each judge’s voting power is equal. Historical examples exist where the CJI has authored a minority opinion of the Court.
For instance, in the recent Economic Weaker Sections quota dispute, the then CJI, Justice U.U. Lalit, and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat authored the minority opinion.
This system is followed by many Commonwealth countries like the U.K., Australia, and Canada.
In contrast, countries like the U.S. have a collective decision-making process, where judges sit en bloc, reflecting the Court’s collective strength rather than individual Benches, as is the case in India.
In India, the authority of the Master of the Roster has been subject to intense debate but has been periodically reaffirmed for administrative decisions to ensure the Court’s smooth functioning.
However, the present order by the CJI goes beyond the powers envisioned under the ‘Master of the Roster’ system.
It is ironic that a judgment stressing adherence to statutory procedures for investigation and bail was effectively undermined by a questionable procedure that is entirely foreign to both the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules.

Associated Concerns with Master of Rooster System

While the ‘Master of the Roster’ system has administrative benefits, the numerous instances of abuse raise concerns.

Just half a decade ago, four senior judges of the Supreme Court raised serious concerns about flaws and irregularities in case administration and assignment to different Benches.
The powers granted to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as the Master of the Roster are extensive, and it is practically challenging to establish specific limits on these powers, which are intended to ensure the smooth functioning of the Court.
It is crucial for the CJI to refrain from expanding their powers in this role.

Conclusion

The interim order raises concerns because, in the future, if the government is dissatisfied with a Bench’s decision, it can simply approach the CJI to strip the verdict of its legal authority, instead of going through the review process with the same Bench. To address these concerns, it is imperative to automate and computerize the process of constituting Benches and allocating cases, removing them from the discretionary control of the CJI.

The Editorial Analysis- India’s G20 Presidency and Food Security