Individual Litigant Or Advocate Has No Vested Or Fundamental Right To Demand Out Of Turn Listing Of Matter: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that an individual litigant or counsel has no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, save through established exceptional protocols.

The Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a practicing advocate seeking a mandamus to compel the Registry to immediately list twenty-one of his pending matters.

The Court observed that bypassing established procedures to favour one advocate would violate the principle of equal access to justice and overwhelm the judicial administration with internal litigation.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, "An individual litigant or counsel has no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, save through established exceptional protocols...If every advocate whose case is delayed is permitted to file a writ petition against the Registry, the court would be flooded with internal litigation, effectively paralyzing the administration of justice. Mandamus is a discretionary remedy reserved for enforcing a clear statutory right or correcting a palpable breach of legal duty. No such breach exists here...The petitioner is not without a remedy, but his choice of forum and format is severely flawed."

Petitioner appeared in person, while Advocate M.Kempraj appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a practicing advocate of the High Court, approached the Court in person by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the High Court Registry, at both its Principal Seat and its Madurai Bench, to forthwith list a comprehensive catalogue of twenty-one distinct pending matters. These matters included several Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, Civil Revision Petitions, Criminal Original Petitions, and Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner on behalf of his clients, which failed to find a place in the daily cause-lists despite multiple letters of request addressed by him to the Registry.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the administrative lapse of the Registry in failing to list his cases caused him significant mental distress and professional anxiety, as he felt answerable to his litigants. He argued that despite submitting formal letters of request to the Registry, the cases remained unlisted for a long time, thereby necessitating judicial intervention through a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to list the said matters immediately.

The respondents, representing the administration of the High Court, maintained that the listing of cases was governed by established procedural frameworks and roster allocations, which could not be bypassed through a judicial fiat.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that while it held a sympathetic regard for the professional anxieties of a young member of the Bar, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be utilized as an administrative tool to bypass the established listing procedures of the High Court. It was noted that the administrative authority to control the flow of litigation was an essential facet of judicial independence, and a writ of mandamus could not be issued to the Registry to disrupt the allocation of cases as per the roster.

The Court further observed that an individual litigant or counsel possessed no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, except through established exceptional protocols.

Taking notice of the Herculean administrative challenges faced by the Registry, the Court remarked that the listing of cases was not a mechanical exercise of data entry but a complex process involving thousands of filings weekly.

It was observed, "Equity demands that all litigants who knock on the doors of this court be treated with equal dignity and fairness. Allowing the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly situated litigants by judicial fiat would violate the principle of equal access to justice...In the light of the legal position enunciated above, the relief sought cannot be granted within the parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The Court emphasized that mandamus was a discretionary remedy reserved for enforcing a clear statutory right or correcting a palpable breach of legal duty, neither of which existed in the present case. It was further observed that the petitioner was not without a remedy, as he could either submit a formal praecipe before the Bench holding the respective roster or submit a comprehensive representation to the Registrar (Judicial).

Ultimately, the Court held that allowing the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly situated litigants would violate the principle of equal access to justice, and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: L.K.Charles Alexander v. The Registrar General, Madras High Court & Anr. [W.P.No.24309 of 2026]

Appearances:

Respondents: Advocate M.Kempraj

Click here to read/download the Order