Registry To Obtain 'Administrative Order' From Chief Justice For Listing Cases Deviating From Roster: Kerala High Court

The court was hearing a suo motu matter under the Judicial Practice and Procedure roster. The Registry had submitted before the high court that in certain cases, judicial orders were passed to connect case/s from a "different roster without assigning any specific reason or direction to the Registry to obtain administrative orders" from the Chief Justice.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu directed the Registry to place before the Chief Justice any such order of the Court without  delay, for passing necessary administrative orders. 

"So as to avoid inconvenience to the Hon'ble Judges, advocates and the litigants, and to achieve expediency, the Registry, upon receipt of such order, without delay shall put up submission before the Chief Justice for passing necessary administrative orders. It will aid the Registry if the judicial order gives a brief indication as to the need for adopting the course of action". 

A reference was made to the May 21 judgment delivered by the court's division bench  wherein, in respect of matters involving orders passed without complying with the roster. In this order the division bench had observed that the office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice and any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulties to the Judges or Advocates appearing in the matters, will invite disciplinary action. Reiterating these directions the registry had thereafter issued a circular on May 29. 

"The orders listed by the Registry in paragraph (1) as above are passed after the judgment of the Division Bench dated 21 May 2024 and the circular dated 29 May 2024. In the light thereof, the Registry has stated that further course of action to be taken by the Registry in respect of the judicial orders be decided," the bench noted. 

It thereafter said that, "The legal position as regards adherence to the roster, is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chand and reiterated by the Constitution Bench in the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms. The Registry has drawn our attention to the observations of the Constitution Bench that any order passed which is contrary to the law laid down therein would be ineffective in law". 

Case No: JPP 5 of 2024

Case Title: Suo Motu JPP initiated by the High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker)