Kerala High Court Reserves Judgement In Plea Against Its Judge For Listing Only A Few Cases Each Day

The Kerala High Court has reserved its judgement in the Writ Petition challenging the alleged curtailment of the cause list to just 20 matters by Justice Mary Joseph of the High Court.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan reserved the judgement and said that judgment will be pronounced in two weeks. 

Advocate Yeshwant Shenoy, the petitioner appearing in person, submitted that when the matter involves a colleague of a judge, it is a test of the judge. He referred to the oath taken by judges. 

He submitted that his allegation that only a curtailed cause list is published for the Court of the judge concerned, stands admitted. He said that in the Counter Affidavit of the registry, it is stated that the list is curtailed with the permission of the judge concerned. 

He relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court to submit that without the direction of the Chief Justice, no judge can direct which cases can be listed before the judge. He said that the facts in the case are not in dispute since the curtailment of the list is admitted. 

He said that he is only asking for enforcement of the judgment of the Apex Court. He said that the Chief Justice alone can file an affidavit in the case since he is the master of the roster and that notice should be issued to the Chief Justice. He submitted that the judge has interfered with the listing of cases, which is against the judgment of the Apex Court.  

He said that fertile ground for corruption is being created by curtailing the list to only a few cases and the question will then arise as to which cases will be listed. He submitted that the son of the judge is practising as an Advocate before the High Court and that he has filed a complaint to ascertain whether the son is scouting for cases before the Court.

"Why don't you treat it as a patient hearing by a judge?", Justice Kunhikrishnan asked.

He pointed out from the display board that only item number 2 has reached in the Court of the judge concerned. This bar has suffered and we have made a habit of suffering. Incompetence and ego do not go together. This bar has tolerated it far too long, he submitted. When he was told by the Court that he is only speaking for himself and that the Bar Association has not raised any grievance, he said that the Bar Association is spineless and that it ought to have approached the Court. 

Senior Advocate N. N. Suganapalan appearing for the Registry of the High Court submitted that the reliefs sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. He also submitted that there are rules in place which govern the issue raised in the writ petition. He relied on judgments of the Apex Court and the Kerala High Court Act. 

Yeshwant Shenoy rejoined by submitting that he is only seeking an order that the direction of the Chief Justice be followed. He said that he is not seeking any direction against the Chief Justice. He submitted that the Court is discharging judicial function and that the Chief Justice is 'State' under Article 12 when the Chief Justice is discharging administrative duties. He submitted that in the 3rd Judges' case before the Apex Court, the CJI was a party and he filed an affidavit.

He submitted that the "mischief rule" of interpretation should be adopted in the case and that if every judge hears only a few cases, there will be a problem. He said that everybody knows what is happening in the Court of the judge concerned and that if the judge fails to do duty, it sends a wrong signal. He submitted that nobody is above the rule of law. "You show your authority, you show your power using power under Article 215, you should follow Article 219", he submitted. Article 219 is about oath or affirmation by Judges of High Courts.

He referred to the farewell speech of Justice Midha of the Delhi High Court who said that both the parties in a case know the truth and that it is the judge who is on trial. He said that everyone in the courtroom knows the truth about what happens in the court of the judge concerned. 

The Writ Petition is filed by Advocate Yeshwant Shenoy arraying Justice Mary Joseph, a sitting Judge of the High Court as a respondent, alleged that the Judge is only listing twenty matters a day. The Petition arrays the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Union of India, in addition to Justice Mary Joseph as respondents.

Yeshwant has stated in the Petition that "Every other Judge of the Court have on an average a list that stretches to about hundred matters and some of them go beyond 100. The Chief Justice, being the Master of Roster, alone has the power to direct the Registry on listing of matters and no Judge can interfere with the same and direct the Registry to curtail that list."

It was further stated that "Even with the power of being the Master of Roster, the Chief Justice cannot violate Article 14 of the Constitution as regards matters of listing. Considering the backlog of cases, every court ought to have at least 50 matters listed every day along with a disposal list to clear the back log of cases.”

The Petition further says that if every Judge of the Court curtails the list to 20 matters a day, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial work of the Court would cease.

The following are the points for consideration mentioned in the petition – "1. Whether the Registry can curtail the list to just 20 matters a day before a Judge?  2. Whether Judges have any power to direct the Registry to curtail the listing of matters before their Court? 3. Whether the Chief Justice, as a master of Roster, can act in violation of Article 14 as regards listing of matters before the Judges of the High Court?"

The petition says, “In the Petitioner’s almost 22 years of practice, he has not come across a Judge so wantonly acting in breach of the governing principles of law or procedure. It has been pointed out in the petition that on inquiry, the petitioner was informed that the respondent Judge was lethargic as regards issuance of certified copy and that he lists only 20 matters a day due to which the advocates/litigants have to wait endlessly for even a ‘listing’ of their matters before the said Judge."

The Plea further highlights that if every Judge of the High Court limits the number of matters before them to 20, the institution will die its natural death. "Already backlog of cases has broken the back of the Judiciary and if every Judge decides to hear only 20 matters a day, then the Institution itself will not survive", says the plea.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Shaji P. Chaly while issuing notice in the plea had observed that "Going through the pleadings and the nature of contentions advanced by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the maintainability of the writ petition is doubtful and therefore, without receiving a counter affidavit from the fourth respondent, i.e., the Registrar General of this Court, I think, it may not be appropriate on my part to proceed further either for the consideration of the main relief or the interim relief"

Cause Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 6912/2023]