Supreme Court needs transparent roster system, says former Judge Oka

A roster is an administrative plan that assigns particular categories of cases to particular Benches. It helps organise judicial work and gives litigants a clearer path from filing to hearing. Its central purpose is to prevent manual intervention in listing. A transparent roster should make the likely Bench identifiable from the case category.

For example, a roster may assign one Bench a category such as constitutional petitions and another Bench a different category. When a new case is filed, its subject should lead it automatically to the Bench responsible for that category. Justice Abhay S. Oka objected that several Supreme Court Benches currently receive the same subjects.

That overlap weakens the roster’s purpose. If multiple Benches have the same assignment, someone must decide which one receives the case. Oka said the Supreme Court needs a proper roster, comparable to those in High Courts, to reduce manual intervention and make allocation clearer for litigants.

Under the arrangement criticised by Justice Oka, a case in a category assigned to several Benches could potentially be listed before five different Supreme Court Benches. This is the most striking figure in his criticism. It shows that the roster does not always identify one clear destination for a freshly filed case.

The problem begins when multiple Benches receive the same subject under the roster. A newly instituted petition may fit that shared category, but the category alone does not reveal which Bench will hear it. Oka therefore asked who makes the final choice: the Chief Justice of India or an official in the Registry.

The five-Bench possibility matters because it exposes a gap between the roster’s purpose and its operation. A system designed to remove manual intervention can still require a person to select among several eligible Benches. Oka called for a system that rules out that uncertainty.

The Chief Justice of India is known in the article as the “master of the roster.” This means the CJI has administrative authority over how the Supreme Court’s judicial work is organised. The role is not described as deciding the merits of cases. It concerns the institution’s structure and case allocation.

The CJI can constitute Benches and assign categories of judicial work among them. For instance, the roster may determine which Bench or Benches receive a particular type of petition. When the same category is assigned to several Benches, however, the system still needs a way to choose among them when a new case is filed.

Justice Oka said this makes the Supreme Court too dependent on the Chief Justice’s office for listing and allocation. He urged a proper roster, comparable to those in High Courts, so that allocation follows a clearer system and manual intervention by the CJI is ruled out.

A roster is meant to connect a case category with a predictable Bench. That connection becomes unclear when the same subject is assigned to several Benches. A freshly filed petition may qualify for more than one listed destination, so the category alone cannot determine where it will be heard.

Justice Oka gave a concrete example: a case could possibly go to five different Benches. He asked who decides which Bench receives it—the Chief Justice of India or an official in the Registry. That choice is the key mechanism creating scope for manual intervention. The roster has identified several options instead of one automatic route.

This matters because the identity of the Bench can affect how litigants understand the listing process, even before the case is heard. Oka said the Supreme Court should adopt a clearer roster, on a par with High Courts, to eliminate such discretionary selection and make allocation more transparent.

When litigants cannot tell which Bench will receive a freshly filed case, the listing process becomes harder to understand. The concern is not simply inconvenience. A transparent system should let people follow the route from filing to allocation through clear, consistent rules. Justice Oka said the current arrangement makes that route uncertain.

The uncertainty arises because several Benches may share the same case category. Oka said a petition could potentially go before five different Benches. The unanswered practical question is who selects among them: the Chief Justice of India or a Registry official. That selection leaves room for manual intervention rather than an automatic allocation.

If the route remains unclear, confidence in administrative fairness may suffer. Oka argued that the Supreme Court would become more favourable to litigants if it used a proper roster like the High Courts. A clearer system could make listing more predictable and strengthen the court’s credibility.

The article presents High Court committees as a more collective way to handle administrative decisions. These committees are constituted by the respective Chief Justices, but decisions are taken through a group rather than solely by one office. That creates an element of administrative accountability in the process.

The key difference is how authority is exercised. In the Supreme Court system criticised by Justice Oka, overlapping case assignments can leave the Chief Justice’s office central to listing and allocation. In High Courts, committees consider certain administrative matters, so responsibility is shared among several participants. The article does not say that committees handle every decision.

Oka used this comparison to argue that the Supreme Court is too Chief Justice-centric. He said a proper roster, on a par with High Courts, should rule out manual intervention by the CJI. More collective administration could make allocation less concentrated and help litigants understand how decisions are made.

The collegium system is a judicial process for recommending candidates for appointment as judges. The article does not explain its membership or every procedural step. Justice Abhay S. Oka said he firmly believed in retaining it unless a better system is developed, while insisting that the collegium itself must function transparently.

Transparency means making the process followed by the collegium clearer and more accountable. People should be able to understand how recommendations are considered, rather than seeing appointments as unexplained outcomes. In the article, Oka focuses especially on transparency in the process, not on replacing the system. That distinction is central to his position.

Clear procedures matter because judicial appointments shape confidence in the courts and support the judiciary’s institutional independence. If decisions appear unexplained, public trust and the collegium’s credibility can weaken. Oka’s proposed direction is therefore reform through greater openness, unless a demonstrably better appointment system emerges.