Maintainability Of Petition Doubtful': Kerala High Court Tells Lawyer Who Challenged Limited Number Of Cases Listed Before A Sitting Judge
The Kerala High Court on Friday questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by an advocate alleging that a sitting judge of the High Court was limiting the number of cases listed before her to only 20 matters a day, while other judges were handling 100 or more matters everyday.When the matter came up before Justice Shaji P Chaly on Friday, he questioned the Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy,...
The Kerala High Court on Friday questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by an advocate alleging that a sitting judge of the High Court was limiting the number of cases listed before her to only 20 matters a day, while other judges were handling 100 or more matters everyday.
When the matter came up before Justice Shaji P Chaly on Friday, he questioned the Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, the petitioner, on the maintainability of the petition.
“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” the court said in its order.
The petitioner has taken issue with the limited number of matters being listed before Justice Mary Joseph in a day and filed a writ petition stating that ‘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’.
When the matter came up on Friday, while the petitioner proceeded with his arguments the court said, “before you proceed further, first of all you have to address the maintainability of this petition”.
The Counsel for the Registrar General of the High Court submitted that the listing of cases is not done by the concerned judge and that the assessment of listing is done by the registry itself. He submitted that courts that deal with appeals generally have limited number of cases listed before them, as opposed to courts dealing with writ petitions, where high number of cases may be listed as disposal of the same is easier.
The petitioner in his writ petition has sought for a minimum of 50 matters to be listed before every court in the High Court in view of the back log of cases before it and to ensure speedy justice to litigants which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution. He has also sought for “a standard criterion for listing of matters before the various courts”. As the backlog of cases increase, people will begin to lose faith in the justice system, the petitioner has contended in his petition.
The court has directed the Registrar General to file a counter affidavit and the matter has been posted to 21.03.2023 for further consideration .
In a separate proceeding which was initiated prior to the filing of the writ petition by the lawyer, the Kerala High Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner advocate for his alleged misbehaviour towards Justice Mary Joseph in Court while appearing in a case before her.
Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy V The Chief Justice High Court of Kerala & Others