Chief justices of India are unique institutional actors. They possess administrative powers that other judges lack. As the Masters of Roster, chief justices appoint panels that adjudicate petitions. How do they exercise this power? Our analysis unmasks Indian chief justices as strategic actors. Data on panel selection over two decades demonstrates how chiefs deploy two strategies as they approach retirement. First, they convene discretionary panels that disproportionately favour governments. Second, they adjudicate more in favour of governments. Indian chief justices, in this context, resemble those of Canada, South Africa, and similar jurisdictions. They are also more likely to secure post-retirement jobs from governments. Cumulatively, this analysis shows why the power to select panels is too awesome – its impact too material – to confine it to lone office holders.
Aney et al. (Fri,) studied this question.