Image used for representation purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court’s recent chastisement of an Allahabad High Court judge for an “absurd” order raises two questions, whether the top court can act as an “elder brother” to High Courts and if “institutional concerns affecting rule of law” would give the top court authority to intervene in the exclusive ‘master of roster’ powers of the Chief Justice of a State High Court.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan found an order by High Court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, so “erroneous” that it directed the High Court’s Chief Justice Arun Bhansali to pair him with a “seasoned senior judge” in a Division Bench. The Supreme Court further directed that Justice Kumar should not be assigned a criminal roster till he demitted office.
The two directions, part of an August 4 order, were objected to by the Allahabad High Court lawyers, who wrote to the Chief Justice. Justice Pardiwala’s Bench modified the August 4 order on Friday after receiving a letter from Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to reconsider the two directions.
No power of superintendence
The six-page order by the Supreme Court Bench said it had never meant, by passing the now deleted directions, to challenge the power of Chief Justice Bhansali as ‘master of roster’ of his High Court.
“We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. Our directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps,” the Supreme Court order read.
The August 8 order explained that when the “dignity of the institution is imperiled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court (Supreme Court) to intervene… The High Courts are not separate islands that can be disassociated from this institution”.
However, the Supreme Court’s own judgment in 2004 in the case of Tirupati Balaji Developers point out that though the Supreme Court is “elder brother” to High Courts in matters of administration of justice, the top court was not conferred with “any power of superintendence” over the High Courts.
Exclusive authority
Besides, repeated judgments have undisputedly confirmed the exclusive authority of a High Court Chief Justice to master his court’s roster.
The top court had found the ‘master of roster’ dictum essential to maintain judicial discipline and decorum, especially after four senior top court judges convened an unprecedented press conference in January 2018, insinuating selective allocation of ‘sensitive’ cases by the then Chief Justice of India.
“The Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted,” the Supreme Court had declared in 1998 in the judgment in State of Rajasthan versus Prakash Chand.
In State of Rajasthan versus Devi Dayal, a reported judgment of 1959, the Allahabad High Court itself had held that “it was the Chief Justice alone who had the power to decide which judge is to sit alone and which cases such judge can decide. Further, it is again for the Chief Justice to determine which judges shall constitute Division Benches and what work those Benches shall do”.
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd case of 1991 had opined that the Chief Justice possessed the “inherent power” to allocate the judicial business of the High court.
In another case, Judicial Accountability and Reforms versus Union of India, the top court had again upheld that the administrative control of the High Court was vested in the Chief Justice. “The same principle must apply proprio vigore [by default] as regards the power of the Chief Justice of India,” the top court had underscored.
Published – August 09, 2025 09:07 pm IST
