New Delhi: The Chief Justice is using his ‘master of the roster’ powers to strategically “influence the outcome of important cases”, and to give himself “more authority than other judges in deciding the most important issues of the day”, finds research in a new book titled ‘Court on Trial’.
Book, Published by Penguin India this month, It is written by Aparna Chandra, Associate Professor of Law, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru; Seetal Kalantri, Professor of Law and Associate Dean at Seattle University School of Law; and William HJ Hubbard, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
It presents a data-driven account of the Supreme Court of India and proposes a practical agenda for reform.
one of the chapters titled ‘First among equals? Master of the Roster and Strategic Case Assignments’ Talks about the power of the ‘Master of the Rooster’. It refers to the powers of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to constitute benches to hear cases.
The chapter, the book states, “provides evidence that chief justices influence the outcome of important cases by using their administrative powers of assigning cases”.
It found that a CJI is 3.6 times more likely to be on a three-judge bench than the next senior-most judge. “In the cases included in our study, chief justices assigned 88 percent of constitution bench cases to themselves, and were four times more likely to be on a constitution bench as the next senior-most judge,” the book states.
The findings were based on a study of cases decided by the Supreme Court between 2010 and 2015. The book also found that there was no correlation between the seniority of judges and their likelihood of being assigned to a three-judge or constitution bench.
According to the book, Chief Justices often “over-appointed to the Constitution Bench those judges who were appointed to the Supreme Court during their tenure as Chief Justice”.
It then goes on to conclude that, in practice, rostering power is deployed “strategically, across the board, not just in isolated cases”.
“Therefore, when the Chief Justice assigns the cases to the Constitution Bench to himself, it contradicts the claim that the Chief Justice does not have more power than other judges on the judicial side. The Chief Justice exercises the ‘master of roster’ power to shape judicial discussion and give himself more authority than other judges in deciding the most important issues of the day.
according to fFormer Supreme Court Judge Justice MB Lokur’s ‘Master of Roster’ power has also been gradually converted into a power.
“The authority does not create any visible problem in any of the High Courts, nor has it created any problem. The change from power to power has only caused the problem. It can be misused and the events of the recent past have clearly shown it.
he told ThePrint.
However, he did not elaborate on the events.
Justice Lokur said that he knows of some senior judges who have retired from the Supreme Court without being part of a constitution bench. “Why should it be so?”
‘Unrestricted power, little accountability’
The chapter on ‘Master of the Rooster’ power begins by recounting the unprecedented press conference held by four Supreme Court judges – Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph – in the lawns of Justice Chelameswar’s house in January 2018.
The four judges registered their differences with the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra in matters related to court administration. He claimed that the conduct of the Supreme Court was “not up to the mark” and that “democracy cannot be protected in this country until this institution is protected”.
A letter written by the judges to the then CJI Misra was also released to the media. “There have been instances where cases with far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution were selectively assigned to ‘choice’ benches by the Chief Justice of this Court without any justification. This must be stopped at all costs,” the letter said.
In response, CJI Misra made the assignment of cases to the Supreme Court public, making the roster of judges public for the first time.
Referring to the conference, the book states, “The concern expressed at the press conference and by court watchers in general is that the Chief Justice may use his master of roster power to allocate judges to specific cases in such a way as to affect the results in those cases.”
The dissent rate of the CJI has also been looked into in the book. In a study of cases decided by the Supreme Court between 2010 and 2015, of the 39 cases decided by a constitution bench, the chief justice never dissented.
The book highlights that “the Chief Justice was always Towards the victory of a split decision on the Constitution Bench”.
Citing his own research and the research of several other scholars, the book states, “Overall, this data suggests that assignments to constitution benches are strategic, and is consistent with the hypothesis that the master of roster power is deployed with a view to influencing outcomes.”
It then suggested that, in principle, the master of the rooster power is uncontrolled, and there is no clarity on the principles by which it is exercised.
It added, “There is little accountability for the exercise of the power, leaving open the possibility of abuse in individual cases, and for strategic deployment by the Chief Justice to suit outcomes more generally preferred.”
(Editing by Richa Mishra)