Kerala High Court slammed a lawyer for demanding judge recusal over past ruling, reminding that only the roster—not litigants—decides judges. The court warned future defiance could attract legal action despite sparing contempt this time.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a recent judgment by the Kerala High Court, Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 33689 of 2024), Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered a noteworthy ruling, emphasizing the importance of courtroom decorum, procedural compliance, and respect for judicial authority.
The petitioner, Mr. Asif Azad, appeared as a party-in-person and filed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Kottarakkara.
The petitioner alleged violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, 21, and 141 of the Constitution of India, praying for the quashing of Exhibits P5 and P8.
However, procedural delays flawed the proceedings. A 40-day delay in representation was sought to be condoned, but despite court directions, the petitioner failed to take the necessary steps to cure the defects.
When the matter came up for hearing, instead of addressing the merits, the petitioner demanded that the judge release himself, citing prior imposition of costs in another matter.
Court’s Observation
The Court strongly criticized this approach, stating that no litigant can dictate which judge should hear their case, as roster allocation lies with the Chief Justice.
Though the judge noted the contemptuous nature of the petitioner’s submission, he refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, considering the petitioner’s status as a layperson. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition for default due to non-compliance with its directions. The Court stated,
“Petitioner will take steps to cure the defect within two weeks. If no steps are taken, Registry will post the matter in the defect list, after two weeks.”
The Court said,
“A litigant cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a Judge. The roster is prepared by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble Chief Justice as per the roster.”
Case Title: Asif Azad v Jaimon Baby & anr.
Asif Azad v Jaimon Baby & anr.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Court Decorum
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
