In a notable session at the Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Vikram Nath expressed a preference for being the ‘master of the court’ over holding the role of ‘master of the roster’. This distinction is significant, as the ‘master of the roster’ refers to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who holds the exclusive authority to form benches and allocate cases in the Supreme Court.
Justice Nath, who is set to assume the position of Chief Justice of India following CJI Justice Surya Kant’s retirement on February 9, 2027, made these remarks during a hearing. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, had issued a notice and stayed an interim order from a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. This order had overturned a single-judge decision in a property dispute related to a residential project in Chennai.
Senior Advocates and the Summer Vacation Policy
Following the dictation of the order, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the developer, highlighted that senior advocates were not allowed to argue during the summer vacation hearings. ‘Your Lordships stopped us (Senior Advocates) from appearing during vacations,’ noted Rohatgi.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also representing the developer, pointed out the challenges arising from the lack of uniform practices among different court benches. ‘Lack of uniformity in courts creates problems,’ Singhvi commented.
Justice Nath responded by emphasizing that each judge has the autonomy to manage proceedings in their own court. ‘No court can ever be uniform in the country. And I am master of my court. Nobody tells me how to run my court! I decide what to do and how to do,’ he asserted.
More Read
Master of the Court vs. Master of the Roster
On a lighter note, Singhvi mentioned that Justice Nath would soon hold the title of ‘master of the roster’. To this, Justice Nath replied with a smile, preferring his current status. ‘That is a different assignment. This is better. Master of the court is best. Master of roster mein bahaut problem hai (being master of the roster is problematic),’ he remarked.
Property Dispute and Legal Proceedings
This exchange occurred during the hearing of a petition filed by Vishveshwara Developers LLP, challenging a June 29 interim order by the Madras High Court. The case involves a long-standing property dispute concerning a residential apartment project. Vishveshwara Developers purchased the property from a previous owner, but Arulmighu Vadapalani Andavar Kovil Devasthanam claimed the land belonged to the temple, leading to a civil suit over the title.
The vendor of the developer succeeded in the title suit, with the Madras High Court upholding the decree in 2016. The temple’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in 2018, effectively resolving the title dispute. Despite this, after the apartment complex’s completion and the sale of 99 flats, the sub-registrar refused to register the deeds due to renewed objections from the temple, which claimed newly discovered documents supported its ownership claim.
More Read
In response to this, the developer moved the Madras High Court. In November 2025, a single-judge directed registration authorities to register the sale deeds, asserting that they could not deny registration based on fresh title claims when the issue had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
Although the sale deeds were registered following contempt of court proceedings, the temple appealed the single-judge’s decision before a Division Bench. The Division Bench, on June 29, sided with the temple in an interim order. Aggrieved, the developer approached the Supreme Court, which issued a notice and stayed the interim order. The Supreme Court clarified that the Madras High Court is free to hear and decide the intra-court appeal on its merits.
