Master of the roster principle defeats forum shopping, unfounded recusal requests, and an SIT transfer plea.

The Chief Justice of India, as master of the roster, has exclusive authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases, and an earlier direction by another Bench could not control that assignment. Successive identically worded petitions, coupled with attempts to avoid a particular Bench and seek recusal without a sustainable basis, were treated as forum shopping and an impermissible effort to choose the forum, so the recusal objection failed. No material linked the higher judiciary to the FIR allegations, and the request to transfer the investigation to an SIT under Article 32 was found misconceived and unwarranted; the petition was dismissed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Justice of India has the prerogative to constitute Benches and assign the matter notwithstanding an earlier judicial order; (ii) whether the successive identically worded petitions and the request for recusal disclosed forum hunting and an impermissible attempt to choose the forum; (iii) whether the writ petition seeking transfer of investigation to an SIT and ancillary reliefs disclosed any sufficient basis for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Justice of India has the prerogative to constitute Benches and assign the matter notwithstanding an earlier judicial order.

Analysis: The governing principle was held to be that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster and alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases. A direction by another Bench as to who should hear the matter could not prevail against that principle. The earlier judicial order relied upon by the petitioner was therefore treated as ineffective in law for the purpose of controlling bench assignment.

Conclusion: The objection to the bench constituted by the Chief Justice of India was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the successive identically worded petitions and the request for recusal disclosed forum hunting and an impermissible attempt to choose the forum.

Analysis: Filing two successive petitions on consecutive days with identical reliefs, coupled with efforts to avoid a particular Bench and to seek recusal without a legally sustainable basis, was treated as a classic attempt at forum shopping. The Court applied the settled principle that a litigant cannot create circumstances to secure a preferred forum, nor can unsubstantiated allegations of conflict of interest be used to compel recusal. Such tactics were viewed as undermining judicial discipline and the administration of justice.

Conclusion: The recusal request and the forum-hunting objections were rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition seeking transfer of investigation to an SIT and ancillary reliefs disclosed any sufficient basis for interference.

Analysis: The Court found no material connecting the higher judiciary with the allegations in the FIR and held that the petition was misconceived. It emphasised that an FIR against unnamed or unrelated persons did not justify casting doubt on the institution or transferring the investigation on the basis pleaded. The petition was found to be scandalous and unnecessary, and the asserted grounds did not warrant the extraordinary relief sought under Article 32.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on merits and was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed in its entirety, with the Court upholding the Chief Justice of India's power to constitute the Bench, condemning forum shopping and unwarranted recusal demands, and declining the request for SIT-related relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster with exclusive authority to constitute Benches and allocate judicial business, and a litigant cannot defeat that authority by forum shopping or by seeking recusal on unfounded allegations of conflict of interest.

---