The Kerala High Court today dismissed the Writ Petition filed challenging the alleged curtailment of the cause list to just 20 matters by Justice Mary Joseph of the High Court. The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in its judgement held that "As per Rule 92, the Bench or Judge has the discretion to issue special or general directions regarding the posting of cases assigned to him/her by the Chief Justice."

The High Court observed that "A reading of the Rule shows that there is discretion to the concerned Bench or Judge regarding the posting of the cases allotted to that Bench. Once the Roster is published by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the subject is allotted to a Judge, the Judge concerned can issue directions regarding the posting of cases assigned to that Judge".

The Writ Petition before the Court filed by Advocate Yeshwant Shenoy alleged that Justice Mary Joseph is only listing twenty matters a day and many times does not even complete the list of 20 matters posted. "If every Judge of the High Court limits the number of matters before them to 20, the institution will die its natural death. Already backlog of cases has broken the back of the Judiciary and if every Judge decides to hear only 20 matters a day, then the Institution itself will not survive", said the plea.

The Court observed that even if the case is accepted that there is a limited number of cases posted before a particular Judge, that is the discretion of that Judge as per the Rules. "An admission court may have to handle more than 100 admissions and petitions. That does not mean that a Judge dealing final hearing cases should consider 100 or more than 100 cases every day", said the High Court.

Admission Court and Hearing Court are Different:

The High Court observed that a hearing matter cannot be disposed of like an admission matter. The admission court and the hearing court are entirely different. Sometimes, a hearing of an appeal will take a full day or days. That does not mean that the Judge is not doing his duty. The Court further said that when a Judge is dealing with a case, he is dealing with the life of a citizen of this country. It may take some time. It should take some time.

Cannot Issue Mandamus Due To Existence Of Rules:

The Court noted that if the prayers in this writ petition are entertained, that would amount to the issuance of direction to the rule-making authority. The High Court is a rule-making authority in light of Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The rules are framed by the High Court invoking the powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and all other powers enabling in this behalf. "This Court cannot issue mandamus to the rule-making authority regarding the posting of cases because it is already stated in Chapter VIII of the Rules", read the Judgement.

Facebook Post Of An Individual Cannot Be Accepted As Evidence:

The High Court noted that the petitioner relied on a Facebook post by a former President of Kerala High Court Association, Advocate Rajesh Vijayan and observed in the Judgement that nowadays, posting on Facebook contains sarcasm, jokes and some spontaneous reactions. The Facebook post of an individual cannot be accepted as evidence by this Court to conclude that a Judge of this Court directed to list only 20 cases per day, especially when the person who made the Facebook post is not a party in this writ petition. Unless that person vouches for the Facebook post, this Court cannot accept such Facebook post to conclude that a learned Judge directed the registry to post only 20 cases before that Court.

Ought Not To Have Filed a Petition Like This on the Judicial Side:

Commenting on the demeanour of the Petitioner, the Court observed that "If the petitioner has a grievance against the listing of cases before a learned Judge, he ought not to have filed a petition like this on the judicial side. He is an officer of the Court. It is the duty of the petitioner to submit that grievance before the learned Judge in that Court itself." The Judge further observed that "I am sure that no Judge will decline such prayer if there is a genuine reason pointed out for an early hearing, of course, depending upon the time available to that Court."

Dismissing the Petition, the Court observed that Lawyers are the officers of the Court; they are part of the judiciary. If these types of litigations are filed by the lawyers, what is the message that will go to the Society? A lawyer having 21 years of practice filing a writ petition before this Court arraying a Judge of this Court and the Hon'ble Chief Justice as party and making wild allegations without any basis, the Court observed.

"Let the God almighty see that the lawyers like the petitioner may be able in argument, let the almighty help the lawyers like the petitioner to be accurate in analysis, let the Almighty help the lawyers like the petitioner to study their case properly, let the Almighty sit with the lawyers like the petitioner in their desk and listen them when they discuss the case with their client’s plaint. Let the Almighty sit beside the lawyers, like the petitioner, while doing their professional duties", read the Judgement.

Publicity Interest Litigation

The Court found that the writ petition is frivolous, filed to get "popularity and news value". The Court noted that the writ petition is filed three days after the petitioner submitted a representation before the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court citing his grievances. "That would show that the intention of the petitioner is not to redress the grievance, if any, but it is only to get popularity by filing a writ petition", the Court observed. The Court added that the petitioner's "intention is only a 'Publicity Interested litigation' to malign judges and the judiciary".

Accordingly, the Court observed that this is a fit case which is to be dismissed with a heavy cost. Since this writ petition is not admitted, the Court said that it is not imposing cost.

Cause Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 6912/2023]

Click here to read/download the Judgement


Justice P.V. KunhikrishnanKerala High CourtJustice Mary Joseph

Ramey Krishan Rana