Retired Supreme Court judge Justice A.S. Oka has stated that the Supreme Court currently lacks a proper roster system because case categories can be assigned to multiple benches, leaving room for manual intervention by the Chief Justice of India. He argued that a genuine roster must eliminate discretionary assignment altogether. Without a fixed, automated roster, the court cannot ensure that litigants receive cases heard by benches determined by rule rather than by the CJI's personal discretion.

The 'roster' refers to the system by which the Chief Justice of India, as 'Master of the Roster,' allocates cases to specific benches. The CJI's power in this regard was affirmed in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018) and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association cases. The Master of the Roster doctrine holds that only the CJI has the exclusive prerogative to constitute benches and assign cases — no other judge can direct which bench hears a matter.

Justice Oka's critique targets a structural gap: if a category of cases — say, constitutional matters or PIL matters — can go to any of several benches, then the CJI retains de facto discretion over which judge ultimately decides sensitive cases. This undermines judicial impartiality and public confidence in random or rule-based allocation.

For CLAT PG, this connects to two tested areas: (1) the constitutional position of the CJI as Master of the Roster — its source, scope, and limits; and (2) separation of powers and judicial independence principles. The examiner has consistently tested landmark rulings on judicial appointments and court administration. Justice Oka's statement introduces a reform dimension: a proper roster system would be algorithmic or fixed by subject-matter rules, removing human choice entirely. This mirrors debates in comparative jurisdictions where random case assignment is treated as a cornerstone of judicial independence.