Chief Justice's roster power under Supreme Court Rules remains exclusive, while case allocation must still follow the procedural framework.

The expression "Chief Justice" in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 refers to the Chief Justice alone for roster, case allocation and constitution of Benches; it cannot be read as a collegium of the five senior-most judges. The collegium reasoning under Article 124 concerns judicial appointments and does not extend to day-to-day listing or roster formation. Listing and allocation of matters must conform to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, while the Chief Justice retains the settled administrative prerogative as Master of Roster within that framework. The petition challenging that structure was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression 'Chief Justice' in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 could be read as a collegium of the five senior-most judges for the purpose of allocation of cases and constitution of Benches; (ii) whether the listing and allocation of matters must be made strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the expression 'Chief Justice' in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 could be read as a collegium of the five senior-most judges for the purpose of allocation of cases and constitution of Benches.

Analysis: The relevant constitutional scheme and the Supreme Court Rules treat the Chief Justice as the authority for constituting Benches and allocating judicial work. The power to frame rules under Article 145 and the rule-making provisions in the Supreme Court Rules recognise this administrative prerogative. The reasoning in the collegium cases under Article 124 was confined to judicial appointments, where the Constitution itself contemplated consultation with multiple judges. That basis does not extend to roster formation or day-to-day listing of cases. Reading 'Chief Justice' as a collegium for this purpose would be impracticable and contrary to the established conventions governing the Court's functioning.

Conclusion: The expression 'Chief Justice' cannot be read as a collegium of five senior-most judges for roster and bench allocation.

Issue (ii): Whether the listing and allocation of matters must be made strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure.

Analysis: The Supreme Court's business must be conducted according to the Rules framed under Article 145 and the internal procedural handbook. Those instruments provide the governing framework for listing and allocation, and the Court affirmed that such procedures are to be followed in the administration of its work. At the same time, the existence of those rules does not displace the Chief Justice's settled prerogative as Master of Roster within that framework.

Conclusion: Listing and allocation must conform to the applicable Rules and procedural handbook, but the Chief Justice remains the authority for roster and bench assignment within that scheme.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected on the core prayer for replacing the Chief Justice with a collegium for roster purposes, while reaffirming that case allocation must operate within the established rules and procedure of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Chief Justice's prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases under the Court's procedural framework is an institutional and administrative function that cannot be transposed into a collegial decision-making model applicable to judicial appointments under Article 124.

---