Supreme Court Needs to Change from Being a Chief Justice-Centric Court

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• Former Supreme Court Judge, Justice A.S. Oka, emphasized in a more democratic and institutionalised manner rather than being heavily centered around the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

The Need for Reform

• Master of the Roster Doctrine: As reaffirmed in Shanti Bhushan vs. Supreme Court of India (2018), the CJI alone decides;
  • Which bench hears which case,
  • Which judges are assigned to benches,
  • When the case is listed for hearing.
• Constitution Bench Control: Although Constitution Bench cases must consist of at least five judges, it is often the CJI who;
  • Decides when such benches are constituted, and
  • Frequently presides over them.
• Control Over Court Administration: According to State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998), while the Chief Justice is ‘first among equals’ in judicial matters, in administrative functions he occupies a unique, dominant role. This includes;
  • Control over court registry,
  • Determination of work allocation, and
  • Implementation of administrative decisions without formal consultation.
• Strengthening the Lower Judiciary: Justice Oka also emphasised the need to empower the district judiciary, often termed the “backbone” of India’s justice delivery system.

Challenges emerging from this structure

• Lack of Transparency: Litigants and even fellow judges remain unaware of how cases are allocated or delayed.
• Delay in Justice: Cases of constitutional or national importance have faced inordinate delays due to the discretionary power of the CJI in constituting benches.
• Weakened Collegiality: The current structure undermines judicial equality and collective responsibility within the apex court.

Steps taken for Increased Transparency

• In 2018, a public roster system was introduced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to improve transparency in the allocation of sensitive cases to judges.
• CJI’s Office Under RTI (2019): In Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Supreme Court, a Constitution Bench held that the office of the CJI falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act — a landmark step for judicial transparency.
• The Supreme Court uploaded details of the appointment process for judges to High Courts and the apex court, enhancing public understanding of judicial selections.

Reforms Needed

• Committee-Based Decision-Making: Establishing internal committees for Bench composition, Case listing, and Administrative matters can decentralise power and bring in broader institutional input.
• Transparent Listing Mechanism: Technology must be used to automate the listing of cases through an algorithm-based system with minimal human discretion.
• Collegiality in Constitution Bench Assignments: A panel of senior judges could collectively decide on the composition of Constitution Benches and the timing of their hearings, rather than relying on the sole discretion of the CJI.

Concluding remarks

• As the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court must ensure that it remains not only independent but also institutionally robust, inclusive, and transparent. 
• Moving away from a CJI-centric model towards a more committee-based, democratic structure would strengthen judicial credibility, promote equal responsibility among judges, and reinforce the principle of justice for all.

Source: TH