New Delhi, Oct. 28 -- The credibility of a judicial institution depends not only on the independence of its judges but also on the fairness and transparency of its administrative processes. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka has raised an important question about the manner in which cases are allocated to benches of the country's highest court. His criticism of excessive concentration of administrative authority in the office of the Chief Justice of India deserves serious institutional consideration. The issue extends beyond internal court management. When the process determining which judge hears a particular case lacks sufficient clarity, public confidence in the impartial administration of justice can suffer. Judicial independence cannot be secured merely through constitutional guarantees; it must also be reflected in transparent procedures that leave little room for arbitrary discretion.
The Chief Justice's authority as master of the roster serves an essential administrative purpose. Courts require leadership to distribute workloads, constitute benches and respond to urgent matters. However, administrative necessity should not become an argument for unrestricted discretion. Justice Oka has highlighted how assigning identical categories of cases to multiple benches can create uncertainty over the final allocation of individual matters. Such arrangements do not automatically establish wrongdoing, but they leave legitimate questions unanswered about the criteria governing judicial assignments. A clearly defined roster, supported by objective allocation rules and publicly available procedures, would reduce this uncertainty. Exceptions may sometimes be unavoidable, particularly in urgent or specialised cases, but departures from established procedures should be documented and justified rather than left unexplained.
Equally troubling is the uncertainty surrounding the listing of cases. For litigants, access to justice begins long before arguments are heard or judgments delivered. A petition that remains unlisted effectively denies its applicant timely judicial consideration. Dependence on repeated requests for hearings can create inequalities between litigants possessing considerable legal resources and ordinary citizens unfamiliar with procedural complexities. Automatic scheduling of newly filed cases, subject to reasonable scrutiny and clearly defined exceptions, would establish greater predictability. Courts must also ensure that matters fixed through judicial orders are not removed from hearing lists through unexplained administrative decisions. Technology can facilitate these reforms, but digitisation alone cannot guarantee fairness unless the rules governing its operation are transparent and consistently enforced.
The larger challenge concerns the institutional culture surrounding judicial authority. Excessive dependence on individual officeholders can weaken collective responsibility and encourage the personalisation of institutions that should function according to established principles. Administrative committees, transparent decision-making and meaningful internal accountability can distribute responsibility without compromising judicial independence. Such reforms must also recognise the practical pressures of mounting litigation, judicial vacancies and uneven workloads. A mechanical allocation system without adequate safeguards could create fresh difficulties. Nevertheless, these concerns justify carefully designed procedures, not the preservation of avoidable opacity. The Supreme Court's authority ultimately rests upon public trust in its fairness. That trust is strengthened when judicial administration operates through predictable rules rather than personal discretion. Justice must not only be delivered impartially; the process determining how it is delivered must command equal confidence.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.