The Supreme Court on Monday witnessed a candid exchange on judicial functioning and court administration, with Justice Vikram Nath observing that being the “master of the court” was preferable to being the “master of the roster,” while hearing a property dispute arising from a residential project in Chennai.
The remarks were made by the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta after it issued notice and stayed the operation of an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in an intra-court appeal concerning the registration of sale deeds for flats in a residential complex developed by Vishveshwara Developers LLP.
The discussion arose after the order was dictated. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the developer, referred to the Bench’s practice during the Supreme Court’s summer vacation of not permitting senior advocates to argue matters and remarked that they had earlier been prevented from appearing during vacation hearings. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also representing the developer, submitted that the absence of uniform practices across different Benches often created practical difficulties for members of the Bar.
Responding to the submission, Justice Nath observed that complete uniformity in judicial functioning was neither possible nor desirable, as every judge is empowered to regulate proceedings in the courtroom assigned to them. He stated that each court is administered by the presiding judge, who has the authority to determine how proceedings are to be conducted and managed.
When Singhvi remarked in a lighter vein that Justice Nath would soon become the “master of the roster” as the next Chief Justice of India, Justice Nath responded that the assignment of being the master of the roster came with its own challenges and that he preferred being the master of his own court. Under the constitutional scheme and the Supreme Court Rules, the Chief Justice of India functions as the “master of the roster” and exercises the exclusive administrative power to constitute Benches and allocate judicial work among them.
Justice Nath is next in line to assume office as the Chief Justice of India after the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Surya Kant, on February 9, 2027.
The observations were made during the hearing of a special leave petition filed by Vishveshwara Developers LLP challenging the June 29 interim order of the Madras High Court in a long-pending property dispute involving a residential apartment project in Chennai.
The dispute relates to the registration of sale deeds for 99 flats constructed by the developer. Vishveshwara Developers had purchased the property from its vendor, whose title had earlier been challenged by Arulmighu Vadapalani Andavar Kovil Devasthanam on the ground that the land belonged to the temple.
The civil suit concerning title was decided in favour of the vendor, and the decree was subsequently affirmed by the Madras High Court in 2016. The temple’s appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2018, thereby giving finality to the title dispute.
Following completion of the residential project and sale of the flats, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deeds after the temple raised fresh objections claiming that it had discovered additional documents allegedly establishing its ownership over the property.
The developer challenged the refusal before the Madras High Court. In November 2025, a single-judge Bench directed the registration authorities to register the sale deeds, holding that the registering authority could not refuse registration on the basis of fresh title claims once the issue had attained finality through judicial adjudication, including the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the temple’s appeal.
Although the sale deeds were eventually registered after contempt proceedings were initiated, the temple challenged the Single Judge’s order before a Division Bench through an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench subsequently passed an interim order in favour of the temple on June 29, prompting the developer to approach the Supreme Court.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court issued notice on the developer’s petition and stayed the operation of the Division Bench’s interim order. However, the Court clarified that the Madras High Court would remain free to hear and finally decide the pending intra-court appeal on its own merits in accordance with law.
The post Master of court better than master of roster: Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath appeared first on India Legal.