I disagree slightly with @DrLivingston (so I provide a different answer).
I agree with what Nate Eldredge said. It is bizarre. Does the "top journal" in question use blind review? If it's not blind the absence of his name could hurt you if he is well known. If it's blind, it won't affect the review process.
Matter-of-fact, that's certainly true to some extent, but it's not something you should exploit. For instance, adding some important coauthor to the paper often helps your chances even if he contributes nothing, but doing that is unethical, because it advances careers without merit. Furthermore, all authors are individually responsible for the accuracy of the content.
(Actually collaborating with an important scientist is an entirely different thing, but you should do it to improve the content).
Therefore, I'd be more careful: reviewers should not judge the paper merit based on who authors it, especially not consciously (with a few exceptions, say if the author intentionally defrauded the system in the past); unfortunately, this does happens even to people who try to avoid it, and that happens more in some communities than in others, so papers by famous scientists have sometimes unfair advantages in acceptance.
In any case, your supervisor should only be in the author list if he contributes something to the paper. Since you already have a draft, I can imagine his contribution would be help in revising this draft before submission — which can certainly be useful and deserve coauthorship (though I think there could be some debate about this, which hinges on how much creativity is left in writing the paper after doing the work. Some computer scientists argue that writing the paper is 50% of the job, because most of our papers are mostly not reports on experiments, but argumentative texts which use experiments to support some of their claims).
In this case, I think the correct question would be the following. Is your supervisor potential contribution to the paper useful enough to involve him in the project?
If the supervisor will not provide any contribution except his name, then he should not be there. If he forces you to have his name, that's clearly unethical behavior, and you should think about calling him on it; unfortunately that's typically hard as long as he is your supervisor.