10 August 2025
(Mains: Editorials Simplified)

ROSTER POWERS: SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS

The recent Supreme Court intervention in an Allahabad High Court judge’s order has reignited the debate on the extent of the Supreme Court’s supervisory role over High Courts. This episode highlights the delicate balance between judicial hierarchy and institutional autonomy.

Key Concepts and Terminology

• Master of Roster: The exclusive administrative authority of a High Court Chief Justice to allocate cases and constitute benches within that High Court.

• Elder Brother Principle: The idea that the Supreme Court acts as a guiding or supervisory institution over High Courts in judicial administration.

• Institutional Concerns: Matters that affect the dignity, integrity, or functioning of judicial institutions and the rule of law.

• Judicial Discipline and Decorum: Principles ensuring orderly and fair administration of justice, often linked to the independence of the judiciary.

Background

• The present issue arose when the Supreme Court intervened in an order by an Allahabad High Court judge and directed administrative restrictions.

• The restrictions were seen as encroaching on the HC Chief Justice’s exclusive “master of roster” powers. This triggered objections from the High Court’s bar and Chief Justice.

• The conflict echoes earlier jurisprudence, notably the Supreme Court’s 2004 judgment in Tirupati Balaji Developers case, which affirmed the HC Chief Justice’s exclusive authority over roster management.

• The 1991 Madras High Court decision in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd. case also recognised the Chief Justice’s inherent power to allocate judicial business.

Issues and Challenges

• Scope of Supreme Court’s Supervisory Role:

  • While the Supreme Court is the apex judicial body, its supervisory powers over High Courts are limited.

  • Past judgments (e.g., Tirupati Balaji Developers, 2004) affirm that the Supreme Court does not have direct superintendence over High Courts.

• Exclusive Authority of Chief Justice of High Court:

  • The Chief Justice’s “master of roster” power is vital for maintaining judicial discipline and preventing external or internal interference.

  • This power ensures autonomy in case allocation and judicial administration within the High Court.

• Tension Between Intervention and Autonomy:

  • Supreme Court’s intervention was triggered by “institutional concerns affecting rule of law,” emphasizing the court’s duty to uphold judicial integrity.

  • However, such interventions may risk undermining the autonomy of High Courts and their Chief Justices.

• Perception and Institutional Dignity:

  • Public perceptions of selective case allocation or judicial bias can affect trust in the judiciary.

  • The Supreme Court’s caution in modifying its order reflects sensitivity to institutional roles and public confidence.

Suggested Way Forward

• Clear Guidelines on Intervention:

  • Define precise conditions under which the Supreme Court can intervene in High Court administrative matters, balancing autonomy and oversight.

• Strengthening Internal Mechanisms:

  • Encourage High Courts to develop transparent case allocation procedures to minimize perceptions of arbitrariness.

  • Institutionalise peer review or oversight committees within High Courts to address internal concerns.

• Judicial Accountability and Training:

  • Continuous judicial education on administrative roles and ethics to uphold decorum.

  • Mechanisms for addressing erroneous or controversial orders within the High Court without external intervention.

• Promoting Public Confidence:

  • Enhance transparency in roster management to build trust.

  • Public communication strategies to explain judiciary functioning and maintain institutional dignity.

Conclusion

The delicate balance between the Supreme Court’s role as the apex judicial authority and the autonomy of High Courts is crucial to maintaining the integrity of India’s judicial system. While intervention by the Supreme Court is warranted in exceptional cases affecting the rule of law, it must be exercised with restraint and respect for institutional independence. Strengthening internal judicial administration can ensure a transparent and trusted judiciary.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

THE DECLINE OF MAOIST INSURGENCY IN INDIA

From its peak in the late 2000s, the influence of Left-Wing Extremism has contracted to just 18 districts. This reduction is attributed not only to targeted development initiatives and sustained counterinsurgency efforts but also to internal fissures within the Maoist movement, ideological stagnation, leadership crises, and a shifting support base among tribal communities.

Key Concepts and Context

• Maoist Insurgency: Also called Left-Wing Extremism (LWE), it is an armed movement rooted in Maoist ideology aiming to overthrow the state through protracted people’s war.

• Red Corridor: Historically, a vast belt of districts across central and eastern India where Maoist influence was strongest.

• Politburo: The apex decision-making body of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

• Counterinsurgency Operations: Security measures taken by the state to suppress insurgent activities.

• Surrendered Maoists: Former cadres who have renounced violence and joined rehabilitation or mainstream society.

Core Issues in Maoist Decline

• Strategic and Ideological Weaknesses:

  • Overemphasis on military tactics at the cost of political outreach and engagement.

  • Ideological rigidity alienating the youth and local communities increasingly focused on education and employment.

  • Leadership crises, notably post-2018, weakening command structure.

• Internal Fragmentation:

  • Factionalism and betrayals leading to distrust and weakening organisational coherence.

  • Decline in active Politburo membership signalling operational setbacks.

• Effective State Response:

  • Targeted development schemes addressing local grievances and improving livelihoods.

  • Sustained and coordinated counterinsurgency operations diminishing operational space.

• Societal Shifts:

  • Changing aspirations among tribal populations toward mainstream socio-economic integration.

  • Increased focus on peaceful resolution advocated by former members, indicating ideological softening.

Way Forward

• Comprehensive Development:

  • Strengthening tribal welfare and infrastructure, emphasizing education, health, and employment opportunities.

  • Ensuring participatory governance that integrates tribal voices and respects cultural identities.

• Enhanced Security Measures:

  • Continued intelligence-driven counterinsurgency operations with respect for human rights.

  • Focus on deradicalisation and rehabilitation programs for surrendered cadres.

• Political Engagement:

  • Facilitating dialogue channels for grievances to prevent violent resurgence.

  • Addressing ideological alienation through inclusive development policies.

• Community Empowerment:

  • Empowering local communities economically and politically to resist insurgent influence.

  • Promoting awareness about the drawbacks of violence and benefits of peace.

Conclusion

For India’s internal security architecture, the Maoist decline presents both a success and a cautionary tale. It emphasises the need for a balanced approach blending security, development, and dialogue to ensure long-term stability and inclusive growth.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………