Master of court is better than being master of roster: Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath's recent remarks, stating a preference for being the “master of the court” over the “master of the roster,” have ignited a crucial discussion on judicial administration in India. The statement, made during a hearing, challenges the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) exclusive authority to allocate cases and constitute Benches, a power traditionally known as the “master of the roster.” Coming from a judge next in line to become CJI, these comments underscore long-standing debates regarding judicial independence, administrative transparency, and the practical implications of varying court practices for legal professionals. The remarks highlight the tension between centralized administrative control and individual judicial autonomy in managing court proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India recently witnessed a significant exchange on judicial administration, with Justice Vikram Nath candidly remarking that being the “master of the court” is preferable to being the “master of the roster.” This statement, made during a hearing concerning a property dispute, has resonated deeply within legal circles, particularly as Justice Nath is slated to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in February 2027. The term “master of the roster” refers to the CJI's exclusive administrative authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases before the Supreme Court.

Justice Nath's observation emerged in the context of Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi highlighting the practical difficulties faced by lawyers due to a lack of uniform practice across different Benches, specifically regarding appearances during vacation. Justice Nath responded by asserting that every judge is entitled to regulate proceedings in their assigned court, stating, “I am master of my court. Nobody tells me how to run my court!” These remarks bring to the forefront the intricate balance between the CJI's administrative powers and the autonomy of individual judges, prompting a re-examination of judicial administrative practices and their impact on the efficiency and fairness of the justice delivery system.

The principle of the 'master of the roster' vests the Chief Justice of India with the exclusive administrative power to constitute Benches and allocate cases. This power is not explicitly codified in the Constitution of India but has evolved as a long-standing convention, consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. Key among these is the decision in *State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors.* (1998) 2 SCC 447, which unequivocally held that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the sole master of the roster, a principle subsequently transposed to the Supreme Court.

This administrative prerogative was further solidified in *Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and Another* (2018) 8 SCC 396, where the Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging the CJI's exclusive power to allocate cases. The Court reiterated that the CJI's authority in this regard is essential for maintaining judicial discipline, decorum, and the efficient functioning of the Court, operating within the ambit of Article 145 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. However, the exercise of this power has not been without controversy. Notably, in January 2018, four senior Supreme Court judges held an unprecedented press conference, publicly expressing concerns about the administration of the Court and the allocation of sensitive cases by the then CJI, Justice Dipak Misra. This event highlighted underlying tensions regarding transparency and potential arbitrariness in the exercise of the 'master of the roster' power, prompting calls for greater clarity and a more collegial approach to administrative decisions.

Justice Vikram Nath's distinction between being the “master of the court” and the “master of the roster” highlights a nuanced but critical aspect of judicial administration. While the “master of the roster” pertains to the CJI's overarching administrative authority to allocate cases and constitute benches, the “master of the court” refers to an individual judge's inherent power to regulate the proceedings within their own courtroom. This assertion by Justice Nath, in response to concerns about the lack of uniform practice regarding senior advocates' appearances during vacation, underscores the tension between centralized administrative directives and the autonomy of individual Benches.

The practical difficulties articulated by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi regarding inconsistent practices across Benches are a tangible consequence of this administrative duality. When different Benches adopt varying approaches to procedural matters, it creates uncertainty and inefficiency for legal practitioners, impacting case preparation and presentation. While the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Handbook of Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017, provide a framework for court functioning, individual judges retain significant discretion in managing their dockets and courtroom decorum.

The Supreme Court, in cases like *Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India* (2018) 8 SCC 396, has consistently affirmed the CJI as the 'master of the roster,' emphasizing the necessity of this power for the Court's efficient functioning. However, the debate has often revolved around the transparency and potential for arbitrariness in the exercise of this extensive power. Critics argue that while the CJI is 'first among equals' on the judicial side, the administrative power as 'master of the roster' can, if not exercised judiciously and transparently, lead to concerns about the independence of the judiciary. Justice Nath's remarks, particularly given his position as a future CJI, suggest a recognition of the importance of individual judicial autonomy within the broader administrative framework. His statement could be interpreted as a call for greater clarity and perhaps a more consultative approach to administrative policies that directly affect the day-to-day functioning of individual Benches, without necessarily undermining the CJI's ultimate authority over the roster.

This ongoing discourse highlights the delicate balance required in judicial administration: maintaining the CJI's authority for institutional coherence while respecting and enabling the independence of individual judges in conducting their court proceedings. The absence of publicly known criteria for case allocation and bench formation, as noted in discussions surrounding the 'master of the roster,' remains a point of concern for ensuring process legitimacy and public trust in the judiciary.

Justice Vikram Nath's assertion of being the “master of the court” over the “master of the roster” serves as a timely reminder of the intricate dynamics within the Indian judiciary. For practising attorneys, these remarks underscore the persistent challenges posed by a lack of uniform administrative practices across different Benches, necessitating adaptability and vigilance in navigating court procedures. The call for greater consistency, as voiced by senior counsel, highlights a practical need that directly impacts the efficiency and predictability of legal proceedings.

As Justice Nath is poised to assume the role of Chief Justice of India, his comments gain added significance, potentially signalling a future emphasis on individual judicial autonomy in courtroom management, even while upholding the CJI's ultimate administrative authority. Practitioners should closely monitor developments in judicial administration, particularly any initiatives aimed at enhancing transparency in roster allocation or standardizing procedural practices across the Supreme Court. The ongoing dialogue between centralized administrative power and individual judicial discretion will continue to shape the operational landscape of the apex court, influencing how justice is accessed and delivered in India.