The Supreme Court of India has emphasized the necessity for judges to adhere to case assignments made by the Chief Justice. This directive comes in response to a recent case where a civil writ petition was entertained, despite not being specifically assigned, raising concerns about the impropriety of such actions.
In a case involving an appeal challenging a Rajasthan High Court order, the Supreme Court observed that taking up a case not expressly assigned by the Chief Justice constitutes an “act of gross impropriety.” The matter in question pertained to a civil writ petition that sought to consolidate multiple First Information Reports (FIRs), which was entertained by the high court.
A bench of justices, including Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, heard the appeal against the high court’s decision that had directed no coercive steps to be taken against three individuals in connection with eight FIRs.
The Supreme Court noted that the individuals initially approached the high court to quash the FIRs but were not granted interim relief. Subsequently, they filed a separate writ petition on the civil side to consolidate the eight FIRs.
Appellant Ambalal Parihar, responsible for six FIRs against the three individuals, contended that the use of a civil writ petition was a strategic maneuver to avoid the roster judge who had previously denied interim relief. The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of this tactic, labeling it a “classic case of forum hunting” and an “abuse of process of law.”
The bench stressed the importance of maintaining discipline among judges, highlighting that cases should not be entertained unless specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. It underscored that a judge can only take up a case if it falls under the category assigned to them as per the notified roster or if the specific case has been assigned by the Chief Justice.
While acknowledging the filing of a civil writ petition, the Supreme Court asserted that the judge should have converted it into a criminal writ petition, which is within the purview of the roster judge responsible for criminal writ petitions.
Concluding the matter, the bench imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the three litigants. They are directed to remit this cost to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a month.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court underscored that the conduct of the litigants will be considered in subsequent proceedings involving section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the quashing of FIRs. The court further instructed the registrar (judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court to distribute copies of its order to all eight petitions filed by the litigants under section 482 of CrPC.
This ruling by the Supreme Court underscores the significance of adherence to case assignments and highlights the consequences of violating this crucial judicial principle.
Sources By Agencies
