Constitutionality of Powers of the Chief Justice of India as the “Master of Roster”

In today's world, the judicial administration deals with rulemaking, quasi-judicial, and purely administrative functions. As a result, the values envisioned in our Constitution, as well as the principles of natural justice, must be applied in a way that strikes a balance between the interests of individuals and the interests of the authorities. When the country's highest court of justice performs administrative tasks, it must be done with the utmost care and prudence. The principle of "Nemo judex in sua causa" constitutes one of the main pillars of our justice system and dates all the way back to Roman Law that not only intended to prevent a potential law-breaker from condoning his errors by justifying the validity of his own acts but also, to preserve public faith in the sanctity and independence of the judiciary itself. For decades, the Chief Justices of Indian courts, most notably the Supreme Court, have had sole authority over assigning cases to the judges. The recent controversy pitting four of the Supreme Court's senior most judges against the Chief Justice of India has sparked a debate over the power vested not just with the Chief Justice of India, but also with the Chief Justices of several High Courts. The administrative power of the Chief Justice, particularly the power that dictates how the Chief Justice works as the Master of the Roster, is a topic of constitutional law governing the Chief Justice's position. So far, we have only witnessed a few conventions to regulate the number of administrative roles played by the Judges. This Article therefore, aims to highlight the constitutional conventions and their importance in the functioning of the country while primarily discussing role of the Chief Justice of India as the sole “Master of Roster” at the Apex Court of Law. The article subsequently highlights the comparison between the Principles of Natural Justice, the Rule of Law and the prevailing scenario, providing suitable recommendations to help the judiciary to keep up with its most crucial goal i.e., administration of justice.