The Supreme Court has recently underscored the importance of judicial discipline, stating that judges should not take up cases unless they are specifically assigned by the Chief Justice of the Court. The apex court remarked,
“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.”
This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal while addressing an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had entertained a civil writ petition that sought the clubbing of certain First Information Reports (FIRs). The Supreme Court pointed out that the judge should not have taken up such a civil petition for clubbing of FIRs when the jurisdiction for such matters lies on the criminal side. The apex court stated,
“Though a Civil Writ Petition was filed, the learned Judge ought to have converted it into a Criminal Writ Petition which could have been placed only before the roster Judge taking up Criminal Writ Petitions.”
The matter came to the Supreme Court’s attention when the appellant, on whose instance some of the FIRs had been lodged, alleged that the civil writ petition was filed to bypass the roster judge who had not granted interim relief in the criminal petitions. The Supreme Court observed that this was a
“gross abuse of process of law”
and termed it a
“classic case of forum hunting.”
The court further noted,
“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.”
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondents, terming their actions a ‘gross abuse of process of law’. The court also emphasized that the conduct of the respondents should be brought to the attention of the concerned court hearing petitions under Section 482 CrPC.
The legal representatives for the case included Adv. Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Adv. Neha Kapoor, and Adv. Milind Kumar for the State of Rajasthan. Adv. Pranab Prakash and Adv. Yash Chaturvedi represented the informant, while Adv. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Sanjana Saddy, and Adv. Surbhi Arora appeared for the accused respondents.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the structured hierarchy and discipline within the judiciary and emphasizes the pivotal role of the Chief Justice in ensuring the smooth functioning of the judicial system.
Also read- Supreme Court To Examine Legal Issues In PMLA Case, Avoids Individual Matters (lawchakra.in)
