Jahanvi Agarwal
In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court issued a stern reminder that judges should refrain from taking up cases that are not expressly assigned to them by the Chief Justice, characterizing such actions as gross impropriety.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal stressed the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the Chief Justice’s prepared roster when assigning cases. The Court affirmed that a judge may only take up a case if it aligns with the designated category in the roster or if the Chief Justice has specifically assigned it. Deviating from this protocol was unequivocally deemed an act of gross impropriety.
In this particular case, the Court imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on three litigants who were found to be engaged in forum shopping, a practice where litigants deliberately seek out specific judges for favorable outcomes. The Court condemned this as an alarming abuse of the legal process.
Background: The three litigants faced accusations in eight criminal cases. Following an unsuccessful attempt to obtain interim relief in their criminal petitions, they pursued an alternative strategy by filing a separate civil writ petition with a request to consolidate the First Information Reports against them. Remarkably, they secured interim relief during the course of the civil case.
An appellant, who had previously reported the criminal offenses, appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the accused’s filing of the civil case was a deliberate maneuver to evade the initial roster judge who had not granted interim relief in the criminal petitions. It was also brought to light that the same attorney had filed both the criminal and civil writ petitions.
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, underscored that the request to merge criminal complaints should not have been entertained in a civil writ petition. Additionally, it expressed concerns regarding the possible erosion of the Chief Justice’s roster if such practices were condoned. The Court determined that the civil writ petition should have been reclassified as a criminal petition and submitted to the roster judge.
Ultimately, the Apex Court upheld the appellant’s appeal and imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the three accused individuals. The Court also instructed the Rajasthan High Court Registry to provide a copy of this order to the bench responsible for adjudicating the criminal petitions filed by the accused litigants.
This case underscores the vital principles of judicial discipline and the significance of respecting the established roster system, which safeguards the integrity of the legal process.