Justice Abhay S. Oka has called for the Supreme Court to adopt a robust, transparent roster system that eliminates any manual interference by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in assigning cases to benches. Speaking at a seminar on “Accountability of Judges” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms in New Delhi on October 27, 2026, he argued that the current practice raises concerns over fairness and predictability.
## The Issue with the Current Roster
Oka pointed out that the Supreme Court’s existing roster system lacks clarity and uniformity. Categories numbered 301 to 306—which cover different legal subjects—are each allocated to several benches simultaneously, leaving it unclear where a particular case will be heard. For example, a Special Leave Petition in an environmental matter could land before any one of multiple benches. This uncertainty, he said, makes the roster system defective.
He emphasised that ambiguity arises from the absence of a strict procedure assigning cases to specific benches. When a subject is handled by more than one bench, questions emerge: Who chooses which bench hears the case—CJI or the Registry? And in doing so, manual override becomes inevitable.
## Why Manual Intervention Is Problematic
According to Oka, the Chief Justice currently retains excessive control over case allotments—an arrangement that weakens institutional accountability. He called for a shift toward collective decision-making, citing some High Courts where administrative powers are shared by committees rather than vested in one person.
He also warned that the concentration of power in the CJI fosters a personality-centered culture. Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s caution against “hero-worship,” Oka signalled that public perception and institutional health demand less individualised control.
## Fresh Hearings Must Be Listed Without Delay
Another area of concern Oka addressed was the delay in securing first hearings for newly filed cases. Processes vary across High Courts—some require advocates to file a mention just to get court dates, and even this does not always guarantee timely listing.
He urged that new cases be automatically listed—ideally within a set timeframe—to strengthen accountability and prevent litigants from being left in limbo.
## Transparency Needed for Cause Lists
Oka was critical of practices in High Courts where, after issuing cause lists (schedules of cases to be heard), registries or judges reduce those lists arbitrarily. For instance, even if 90 cases are scheduled, only 40 might be listed. This reduction, he said, disadvantages litigants and gives administrators undue control.
He recalled that during his own tenure, he issued a strong order declaring that once a judicial order mandates listing a case, the Registry cannot remove it. Such clarity, he suggested, is essential for fairness.
## Collegium System: Preserve but Reform
Justice Oka expressed support for retaining the collegium system for appointing judges unless a superior model emerges. While acknowledging past errors, he insisted that the principle remains fundamentally sound.
However, he flagged transparency in appointments as a weak link—not only in publishing decisions but in how those decisions are made. He warned that exposing detailed deliberations publicly could violate privacy and deter qualified candidates from coming forward.
He also urged the government to act swiftly on collegium recommendations. Long delays in confirmations, he asserted, tarnish the system’s credibility. A contempt petition filed by the Bengaluru Advocates’ Association addressing such delays remains unlisted, he noted.
## Consistency in Precedents & Judicial Accountability
Justice Oka stressed that benches of equal strength must follow earlier decisions of coordinate benches—failure to do so erodes legal certainty.
He also argued that review and curative petitions ought to be rare, preserving their exceptional status. Time-bound directives to subordinate courts, he added, should only be issued with due regard to practical constraints. He recalled that while the Constitution Bench has already ruled that such directives be exceptional, the practice continues at other levels without sufficient care for on-the-ground realities.
## Encouraging Healthy Criticism
Finally, Justice Oka upheld the importance of reasoned criticism toward judicial decisions. Citizens must be able to critique court judgments constructively, he said, without ascribing improper motives.
He noted a troubling trend: outcomes favouring the government often trigger automatic criticism and assumptions of bias, while bold judgments frequently draw more complaints. The judiciary, he insisted, must find a balance—ensuring accountability while protecting independence.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article. before returning it. Do not rewrite, summarize, rephrase, shorten, expand, or make any changes to the text content. Only remove all URLs, hyperlinks, website addresses, source links, ChatGPT referral links, RSS source links, tracking parameters (including utm_source, utm_medium, utm_campaign, and other UTM tags), and any attribution to the original news source. Preserve the text exactly as written. Return only the cleaned content with no links, tracking parameters, or source references.
