Know the Roster System

January 12th, 2017 is a date earmarked in judicial history, an event that witnessed four senior most sitting Judges of Supreme Court of India, publicly raising concerns about the structural flaws regarding the functioning of the administrative division of the Supreme Court. They put forth the complete responsibility upon the shoulders of Chief Justice of India regarding roster system of the Apex Court. In this article, we would make an attempt to gain better understanding and clarity regarding this roster system and about the controversy surrounding it.

The word ‘roster’ can trace its roots since early 18th century, where it was originally used in order to indicate the list of duties and leave for military personnel[1]. In the contemporary world, it is defined as a system to allocate different tasks to all the members in order to achieve higher efficiency.

Since this system allocates tasks to the group members, it has to be under control of some decision making authority. The issue starts when the decision making authority is also to be assigned tasks under that system. The issue is regarding the misuse of that authority of decision making for any reasons whatsoever.

After sufficiently discussing about the meaning of a roster system, let us link it back to the Supreme Court:

1. Firstly, the efficiency of the roster system. As on November 1st 2017, the Supreme Court still had 55,259 pending matters, 24.69% of which cannot be listed for ‘hearing’ before Honorable Although the situation has improved as compared with half a decade earlier, when on November 1st 2012, the Supreme Court had 64,931 pending matters, 62.10% of which could not be listed for ‘hearing before Honorable Court[2]. These reductions in pending cases signify that we need a more efficient procedure for allocation of cases in order to achieve higher utilization of workforce. Hence, better management roster system seems to be necessary.

2. Secondly, regarding the issue of the source that confers such power to a decision making According to the Supreme Court Rules, 2017[3]. Chapter V: Powers, Duties and Functions of the Registrar, Rule 29, expressly states that the Registrar shall prepare roster under the directions of the Chief Justice of India, andall such powers, duties and functions of the registrar are subjected to any further special or general orders of the Chief Justice of India. This power bestowed by the handbook upon the CJI has been reiterated in a separate chapter dedicated to Roster (Chapter VI). It has further been mentioned in Chapter XIII: Listing of Cases. Therefore, as per the rules, the Chief Justice of India has an absolute authority in this regard. Also, to strengthen the argument a step further, we can take into account the precedents that have been established by the Supreme Court Judgments and thereafter been considered as the ‘Law of the Land’. In the seminal judgment of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand[4], paragraph 67 clearly defines that regarding the matters of the High Court, the Chief Justice is the master of the roster( point 2), and this precedent has been considered in the later judgment of Campaign for Judicial Authority and Reforms v. Union of India[5] where the court has reiterated it and extended the understanding of authority of Chief Justice of a High Court to be applicable to the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India as well.

3. Thirdly, the issue is regarding unrestricted use of roster system by the Chief Justice which is not accountable under Constitution or under Supreme Court rules. And the issue can be rectified only by the sitting Chief Justice of India as he has a direct authority over the formulation of the rules of the Supreme Court. And here there is conflict of interest as it does not make much sense for a person adorning the position of Chief Justice of India to take a step in order to formulate a rule that will restrict his/her own power in the end. Moreover, if any action by way of Constitutional Amendment is attempted by the Legislature, it is more likely to be taken as an interference of the legislature in the matters of the judiciary and is likely to be struck down as being against the basic structure doctrine[6].

Another viewpoint can also be formed that based on the existing system, before the event took place, one of the four sitting senior most Justices of the Supreme Court would most likely have become Chief justice of India after some time and can then also have played an instrumental role in bringing out the they desired. Other than public awareness, this event seemed to bring out something more that would be constructive and tangible in nature.

Author: Mr. Madhur Tulsiani, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Can be reached at anirudh@khuranaandkhurana.com.

References:

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/roster

[2] http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/statistics

[3] http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ppop2017.pdf

[4] http://sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/13613.pdf

[5] (2018)1SCC196

[6] http://sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/29981.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

one × 3 =

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010