The Bench Must Rise: Why the Supreme Court Needs to Shed its Chief-Centric Roots

NATIONAL HERO

Post Date: May 28, 2025

Syllabus: GS Paper 2 – Polity and Governance
Category: Supreme Court / Judicial Reform / Institutional Transparency

🎯 Thematic Focus:

Judicial Transparency, Institutional Reforms, Role of the Chief Justice of India

🌿 Intro Whisper:

When the scales of justice tilt too much toward one figure, even the goddess of law must pause — for democracy thrives only when every robe shares equal weight.

🗝️ Key Highlights

• Justice A.S. Oka’s Reform Call: Former SC judge urged the Court to transition away from a CJI-dominated structure to a more institutionalised and democratic setup.
• Master of the Roster Doctrine: Reaffirmed in Shanti Bhushan v. SC (2018) — the CJI alone decides which judge hears which case, when it is listed, and how benches are formed.
• Administrative Control: As per State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) — the CJI has dominant control over court administration, including work allocation and registry.
• Constitution Bench Monopoly: The CJI decides when to constitute 5-judge Constitution Benches, and often presides over them, centralising influence.
• Transparency Deficit: This structure results in case listing opacity, delayed hearings on critical matters, and weakened collegiality within the judiciary.
• Strengthening the Backbone: Justice Oka also highlighted the need to empower the lower judiciary, the essential frontline of India’s justice system.

📚 Concept Explainer

🧾 Why Is It Called a “CJI-Centric Court”?

In practice, the Supreme Court’s internal working — from bench formation to case scheduling — is concentrated in the hands of the Chief Justice. This undermines judicial equality among the other judges who are constitutionally “equal” in authority.

🔎 Previous Transparency Moves:

• Public Roster (2018): Introduced to reveal judge-case allocations.
• RTI Landmark (2019): In Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. SC, the SC held that the CJI’s office is subject to RTI, increasing public accountability.
• Online Publication of Collegium Decisions: Details of judge appointments are now shared publicly.

🔧 Suggested Reforms:

• Committee-Based Case Management: Inclusion of senior judges in decisions on bench constitution, listing, and administration.
• AI-Driven Case Allocation: Use of algorithmic tools for unbiased, time-bound listing.
• Shared Leadership for Constitution Benches: A panel of judges instead of the sole discretion of the CJI should decide these sensitive matters.

🗺️ GS Mains Mapping

• GS Paper 2:
  • Separation of Powers between various organs
  • Structure, Organization, and Functioning of the Judiciary
  • Transparency and Accountability in Governance
  • Challenges of Judicial Reforms in India

💭 A Thought Spark — by IAS Monk

“A court is not merely a chamber of wisdom, but a hall of shared voices — and no echo of justice should depend on a single gavel.”

High Quality Mains Essay For Practice :

Word Limit 1000-1200

The Need for an Institution-Centric Supreme Court: Breaking Away from Chief Justice-Centric Functioning

Introduction

India’s Supreme Court has long stood as a symbol of justice, liberty, and constitutional morality. It is the final interpreter of the Constitution, protector of fundamental rights, and arbiter in disputes of national importance. Yet, behind the grandeur of its pronouncements lies a structural paradox: while the court is envisioned as a collegial body of equals, in practice it often functions as a Chief Justice-centric institution. This centralisation of administrative and functional authority has raised concerns about transparency, democratic functioning, and the erosion of judicial collegiality.

The recent observations of former Supreme Court judge Justice A.S. Oka have reignited the debate about the internal functioning of the apex court. His call for democratic institutionalism within the judiciary signals a growing recognition that the independence of the judiciary must be complemented by institutional balance and administrative transparency.

Understanding the CJI-Centric Model

The centrality of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the Supreme Court’s functioning stems from legal precedents and administrative conventions that vest enormous power in one individual. This includes:

1. Master of the Roster Doctrine

The doctrine gives the CJI sole discretion to decide:

• Which case is heard by which bench;
• Which judges are assigned to which benches;
• When and how a case is listed for hearing.

This was reaffirmed in Shanti Bhushan vs. Supreme Court of India (2018), where the court held that the Chief Justice is the “Master of the Roster,” and this role is integral to the administrative functioning of the court.

2. Administrative Dominance

In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998), the Supreme Court clarified that while all judges are equal in matters of adjudication, the Chief Justice holds exclusive administrative authority, including control over:

• The court registry,
• Allocation of work among judges,
• Case management decisions.

3. Control Over Constitution Benches

Even though the Constitution mandates a minimum of five judges for a Constitution Bench, the CJI alone decides:

• When to constitute such a bench,
• Who will be part of it,
• Whether the matter requires a Constitution Bench at all.

This near-monopoly in decision-making has deep implications for institutional balance.

Consequences of a CJI-Centric Judiciary

The centralisation of power in the hands of one person, however meritorious, raises significant institutional concerns:

1. Lack of Transparency

The opacity surrounding how cases are listed or delayed creates distrust. Even fellow judges may remain unaware of the logic behind bench formation, affecting both fairness and morale.

2. Justice Delayed on Crucial Matters

Cases of national or constitutional significance — including electoral bonds, Article 370, or hate speech — have faced inordinate delays. These are often attributed to the discretionary power of the CJI in deciding when and whether to list such cases.

3. Weakening of Collegiality

When a single figure exercises unilateral control, it undermines the constitutional principle that all judges are equal. Judicial dialogue and shared responsibility give way to hierarchy, damaging the Court’s institutional spirit.

4. Erosion of Public Trust

The perception of arbitrariness in case listing, judge allocation, and delays can fuel public skepticism about the impartiality of justice. Transparency and shared decision-making are crucial to uphold the Court’s moral authority.

Steps Towards Greater Transparency

To the credit of the judiciary, recent years have witnessed incremental but important steps toward internal reform:

1. Introduction of Public Roster (2018)

To address criticism, the Supreme Court made case allocation public through a roster system, allowing lawyers and litigants to view judge-wise jurisdiction.

2. CJI’s Office Under RTI (2019)

In Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Supreme Court, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the office of the CJI is subject to the Right to Information (RTI). This was a landmark judgment signaling the judiciary’s openness to transparency.

3. Publishing Collegium Resolutions

The Supreme Court now publishes collegium resolutions on judge appointments and transfers, providing some insight into internal deliberations.

While these steps are important, they are not sufficient to address the structural concentration of power within the top court.

Reforms for an Institutionalised Supreme Court

The time is ripe for systemic reforms that prioritize shared responsibility, algorithmic transparency, and decentralised governance within the Court. Key suggestions include:

1. Committee-Based Decision-Making

Instead of relying solely on the CJI, decisions regarding:

• Constitution Bench formation,
• Case listing,
• Administrative matters,
  should be taken by a committee of senior-most judges. This ensures institutional input and protects against arbitrariness.

2. Automated Case Listing

Technology must be harnessed to automate case listings through a transparent, algorithm-based system. An AI-enabled scheduling software can use objective criteria like urgency, seniority of filing, and constitutional importance.

3. Collegiality in Bench Formation

A panel of senior judges should determine the composition of Constitution Benches and the timing of hearings. This would depersonalize case allocation and restore balance.

4. Empowering the Registry and Registrar

The Court registry must be administratively strengthened to function autonomously, with independent oversight, thereby reducing dependence on the CJI’s office for operational control.

5. Strengthening the Lower Judiciary

Justice A.S. Oka’s call to empower the district judiciary is crucial. These courts are the first point of contact for most citizens and require:

• More judges,
• Better infrastructure,
• Speedier recruitment and training,
• Greater financial autonomy.

Comparative Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

In the United States, while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court holds ceremonial and procedural seniority, bench composition and case allocation are decided collectively.

In Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, two senates (benches) operate independently, and internal administrative decisions are governed by detailed procedural rules.

These models underscore that a powerful judiciary need not rely on centralised authority, but on well-defined and inclusive institutional processes.

Challenges to Reform

Institutional reform is often the hardest kind, especially when it demands voluntary dilution of power by those who currently wield it. Resistance to change may come from:

• Conservative interpretations of judicial independence,
• Institutional inertia,
• Lack of external oversight mechanisms.

However, reform must be viewed not as dilution, but strengthening of judicial independence through accountability and equality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India stands as the final fortress of constitutionalism, but even fortresses must be transparent, balanced, and democratic in their internal design. Concentration of power in the office of the Chief Justice — while historically functional — has become a bottleneck in today’s complex judicial ecosystem.

Justice Oka’s call is not merely administrative. It is a philosophical plea to reimagine the Supreme Court as a collective of equals, bound by procedure, transparency, and institutional integrity. As India continues its democratic journey, its highest court must mirror the very values it seeks to protect — equality, fairness, and accountability.

The transition from a Chief Justice-centric court to an institutionally balanced one will not be easy, but it is necessary — for the sake of justice, and for the promise of the Constitution.

Closing Quote

“An institution is only as strong as its willingness to share power. Where justice is shared, trust is born.” — IAS Monk

Target IAS-26: Daily MCQs :

📌 Prelims Practice MCQs

Topic: Why the Supreme Court Needs to Shed its Chief-Centric Roots