In Brief
A senior advocate filed a writ petition challenging the Chief Justice's sole discretion to allocate cases and constitute benches, arguing that the word 'Chief Justice' in the Supreme Court Rules should be interpreted to mean a collegium of five senior judges. The petitioner relied on the Second and Third Judges' cases, where 'Chief Justice' was read as collegium in the context of judicial appointments. The Supreme Court (two-judge bench of A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.) dismissed the petition, holding that the Chief Justice in their individual capacity is the Master of Roster. The Court ruled that while the collegium principle applies to judicial appointments under Article 124, it cannot be extended to roster and bench allocation under Article 145 because the daily operational nature of case allocation makes collegium-based decision-making impracticable and would disrupt judicial administration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.