No Advocate Can Claim Out-of-Turn Listing as a Matter of Right: Madras HC
Total Views |
Chennai, July07: The Madras High Court recently said that advocates have no right to demand out of turn listing of their cases except through established procedures in urgent matters.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by advocate L.K. Charles Alexander. The petitioner had sought a direction to the High Court Registry to list 21 cases pending before the Court that he had filed on behalf of his clients.
"An individual litigant or counsel has no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, save through established exceptional protocols,” the Court said.
Appearing in person, Alexander submitted that several civil miscellaneous appeals, civil revision petitions, criminal original petitions, and writ petitions filed by him on behalf of his clients had not been listed for a long time despite repeated representations to the High Court Registry.
He sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar General of the Madras High Court and the Additional Registrar General of the Madurai Bench to list the pending matters without further delay.
The petitioner also alleged that the administrative delay had caused him mental distress, as he was accountable to his clients.
ALSO READ: Gujarat HC Upholds Death Sentence to 38 For Terrorist Attack
The Court said it had sympathy for the professional anxieties of a young member of the Bar. However, it held that Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used as an administrative tool to bypass the High Court’s established listing procedures.
“The administrative authority to control the flow of litigation is an essential facet of judicial independence and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Registry to bypass or disrupt the allocation of cases as per roster,” the Court said.
The Bench also took note of the "Herculean administrative challenges" faced by the High Court Registry.
It said listing of cases was not a mechanical exercise of data entry. The registry has to process thousands of fresh filings every week, apart from matters that are already pending, the Court noted.
The Bench observed that if every advocate whose case was delayed were allowed to file a writ petition against the Registry, the Court would be flooded with internal litigation. Such a situation would effectively paralyse the administration of justice, it said. The Bench, however, clarified that the petitioner was not without a remedy.
ALSO READ: Why Does Trump See Marx In Modern America ?
It observed that if a matter was genuinely urgent or had remained pending due to procedural reasons, counsel could file a formal praecipe or mention memo before the judge or Bench assigned to hear the matter.
To maintain fairness among litigants, cases must generally follow a chronological or category-wise queue, the Bench added.