The Kerala High Court on Friday stated that it has doubts regarding the maintainability of a petition moved by a lawyer raising allegation that only a very limited number of cases are being listed before one of the sitting judges of the High Court. [Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala & Ors.].
The petitioner, advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, moved the Court challenging the curtailment of the list of cases before Justice Mary Joseph to around 20 cases a day, when most judges have over 100 cases listed before them each day.
The plea sought a direction to the Registrar General of High Court to have a standard criterion for listing matters before various courts in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice.
After hearing brief arguments by Shenoy and the counsel for the High Court Registrar, Justice Shaji P Chaly decided that the appropriate course of action would be to first hear the matter on the question of maintainability before considering it on merits.
“On going through the pleadings and the nature of the 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 who is the Registrar of this court, I do not think it would be appropriate on my part to proceed further, either for the grant of the main relief or for interim relief,” the single-judge said in the order.
The matter was posted for hearing on March 17 with a direction to the High Court Registrar, who has been arrayed as a respondent in the case, to file a counter affidavit.
The plea filed by Shenoy said that if some judges start limiting the number of cases before them so drastically, it would negate the goodwill brought about by other judges who hear hundreds of cases each day, work 18 hour shifts and even sit through the night to finish the matters before them.
One of the reliefs he sought from the court is a declaration that a minimum of 50 matters must be listed before every court in the High Court in addition to a ‘final disposal’ list, “considering the pendency of matters before the High Court and the right of litigants to Speedy Justice which is a fundamental right recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”
Today, Senior Advocate NN Sugunapalan, appearing for the Registrar, primarily questioned the maintainability of the petition.
He submitted that the listing of cases is not done by the concerned judge. Rather, it is the registry of the Court that lists the cases.
He pointed out that Justice Joseph’s court deals with motor accident claims appeals (MACA) and argued that courts that deal with appeals can only have a limited number of cases as appeals require more time to be heard and disposed.
“Only a few cases should be taken up in appeal section. In courts that deal with writ petitions, the number of cases will be high because they can be disposed of quickly. The judgment (on how many cases to list) is by the registry,” the Senior advocate said.
However, Shenoy, who appeared in-person, contended that there are three courts dealing with MACAs in the Kerala High Court but only Justice Joseph’s list is limited to 20 cases.
“If the registry can claim that they can curtail the list before only one particular judge then let them put it before this court in an affidavit,” he said.
He argued that the writ petition is maintainable especially since it is the lawyers job to protect the interests of his clients and also the entire legal system.
“How can people of this State be denied that right? How can a lawyer be denied a right of a hearing? How can a person who has come knocking at the doors of justice be denied a hearing?” he asked.
He then read out excerpts from a judgment rendered by another judge of the court last year.
In it, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan had called for an introspection by the judiciary regarding the hardship caused to the common man due to their cases remaining pending for years on end. The judge had also opined that there were shortfalls on the part of the Registry as well and expressed that without implementing changes, “people will lose faith in the judiciary”
The Court ultimately decided to post the matter for hearing on March 17 and directed the High Court Registrar to file a counter affidavit by then.
Incidentally, the Kerala High Court this week had initiated a contempt of court case against Shenoy.
