“Unless you deal with that, I’m afraid we’re going to get nowhere.” Speaking in Delhi, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal took aim at the Chief Justice’s unreviewable power as master of the roster, bargaining in the Collegium and secret in-house inquiries, saying they have worn down public confidence in the higher judiciary.
New Delhi: Calling for reasoned explanations for administrative decisions, transparency in Collegium appointments and a statutory mechanism for complaints against judges, Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said on Tuesday that the “master of the roster” system, under which the Chief Justice alone allocates cases to Benches, is destroying the accountability of the judicial system.
The occasion was a discussion organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) at the India International Centre in New Delhi.
Case allocation beyond reasoned explanation
The Chief Justice’s discretion over which Bench hears which case is administrative and unreviewable, Sibal argued, and unlike a judgment it cannot be publicly debated, which leaves the institution vulnerable. Referring to the master of the roster system, he said:
“Unless you deal with that, I’m afraid we’re going to get nowhere.”
Concerns about how politically sensitive matters are listed follow from this power, he said, offering a hypothetical about cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA): “You send cases of a particular individual to a particular judge.” He did not name any individual or judge.
“They cannot remain beyond reasoned explanation if the institution is to retain the confidence it requires.”
A “black box” and the case for a permanent body
The 1999 In-House Procedure for complaints against judges is an internal, non-statutory “black box,” in Sibal’s description. A system that does not disclose how complaints are dealt with, he said, “cannot claim to be accountable; it can only claim to be closed.”
In its place, he proposed a permanent body with a judicial majority and independent members from the Bar, working to fixed timelines. An inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 should also continue and be placed on record even if the judge concerned resigns, he said:
“Resignation has become the ordinary exit when accountability becomes inconvenient… Resignation cannot be allowed to close the record.”
Appointments: “You take one, I take one”
Appointments, Sibal said, work through bargaining among a High Court Chief Justice, other judges, the Chief Justice of India and the government, which he summed up as “You take one, I take one, we give them one.” He urged the Collegium to publish its reasons for recommending a judge, in a form that respects privacy.
“Accountability does not begin after a judge takes office; it begins with how he is chosen.”
“It too must be scrutinised”
For a judge, Sibal said, “you’re accountable to your conscience. That is the real accountability.” The Supreme Court, he added, must hold itself to the standard it applies to others:
“A court that claims the right to scrutinise every other institution must accept that it too must be scrutinised.”
Where the debate stands
In Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018) and Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster, with exclusive authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases. In Shanti Bhushan, the Court rejected the plea that the power should be exercised by the Collegium of senior judges, holding that the Chief Justice is first among equals and the institution must be trusted. The issue had come to the fore in January 2018, when four senior Supreme Court judges held a press conference raising concerns over the allocation of cases.
Sibal has raised the issue before. In August 2022, he said he had “no hope left” in the Supreme Court, alleging that sensitive cases were assigned to certain judges. His latest remarks come amid a renewed debate on the Collegium after former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s forthcoming memoir, which also objects to the reassignment of a PMLA matter from a Bench he headed. Sibal’s remarks are his views; no response from the Supreme Court or the government was reported.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Event: Discussion organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR)
Venue: India International Centre, New Delhi
Speaker: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
Date: October 27, 2026