Judges Taking Up Cases Not Assigned By Chief Justice Is An Act Of 'Gross Impropriety': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently said that the judges should refrain from taking up cases not specifically assigned to them by the Chief Justice of the Court. If not, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning, the Court said.

The Apex Court said that taking up cases not assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'. 

“If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning. The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. A Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety” a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal said.

These sharp remarks were made by the Apex Court with regard to an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in a civil writ petition praying for clubbing of certain First Information Reports (FIRs). The High Court had granted interim relief by directing that no coercive action shall be taken against the accused persons concerned. The Apex Court said the judge ought not to have entertained such a civil petition for clubbing of FIRs, when the jurisdiction for such matters is on the criminal side.

“Though a Civil Writ Petition was filed, the learned Judge ought to have converted into a Criminal Writ Petition which could have been placed only before the roster Judge taking up Criminal Writ Petitions” the Apex Court said.

The Court also heavily came down on the accused persons, who had approached the High Court with the civil petition after they were denied interim relief by another judge of the High Court in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by them for quashing the FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Appellant, at whose instance some of the FIRs had been lodged, alleged that the Civil Writ Petition with a prayer for consolidation of the FIRs were filed to avoid the roster Judge who had not granted interim relief in the criminal petitions. The Court also noted that the complainants were not impleaded in the Civil Writ Petitions. The Court also made a specific note of the fact that in both the civil and criminal cases, the same advocate represented the accused persons (2nd to 4th Respondents before the Apex Court)

The Court term the action of the 2nd to 4th respondents a ‘gross abuse of process of law’ and a ‘classic case of forum hunting’.

“..this is a case of gross abuse of process of law. We wonder how a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports could be entertained. In the roster notified by the Chief Justice, there is a separate roster for Criminal Writ Petitions” the Court said.

“This is a fit case where the second to fourth respondents must be saddled with costs” the Court said while imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the 2nd to 4th Respondents.

The Supreme Court also said that the conduct of the 2nd to 4th Respondents needed to be brought to the notice of the concerned Court hearing petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing the FIRs against them.

Adv. Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Adv. Neha Kapoor, and Adv. Milind Kumar appeared for the State of Rajasthan .

Adv. Pranab Prakash and Adv. Yash Chaturvedi appeared for the informant.

Adv. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Sanjana Saddy, and Adv. Surbhi Arora appeared for Respondents 2 to 4 (accused).

Case Title: Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and ors, Criminal Appeal No.3233 of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Click here to read/download order