Litigants Cannot Choose Judges Or Seek Recusal: Kerala High Court
An advocate sought to quash a cheque dishonor case but later refused to argue, asking the judge to recuse due to a prior cost order.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that litigants do not have the right to choose or demand the exclusion of specific judges from hearing their cases.
A Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held, "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. If such a practice is started, the litigants can pick and choose the judge who has to hear their case. The same cannot be allowed.”
Advocate Asif Azad appeared in person (party-in-person) and Senior Public Prosecutor CS Hrithwik appeared for the Respondents.
The case involved an Advocate who appeared in person and had filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a cheque dishonour case lodged against him. However, the petition was initially returned by the Registry due to procedural irregularities, with a direction to the petitioner to rectify the same within a two-week period. Despite the time granted, he failed to take any steps to address the defects.
When the matter was brought up again on July 8, he joined the proceedings through video conferencing, but rather than addressing the merits of his case, he refused to argue before Justice Kunhikrishnan. He claimed that he was uncomfortable proceeding with the matter because the same judge had previously imposed a cost against him in a different case. He went on to urge the judge to recuse himself from hearing the present case.
The Court firmly rejected this request, emphasizing that each case is adjudicated based on its own merits, regardless of any prior judicial decisions involving the same party. The judge clarified that a previous imposition of costs did not imply prejudice or bias in future cases involving the same litigant.
"The imposition of cost in one case will never lead to the imposition of cost in all the cases filed by the petitioner. Each case will be decided based on the merit of that particular case," the Court noted.
Further, the Court reiterated that the judicial roster is determined exclusively by the Chief Justice of the High Court, and that it is the responsibility of all litigants to respect this roster. Judges are allocated cases based on this system, and litigants cannot insist on the removal of a judge simply due to dissatisfaction with prior outcomes.
Although the Court found the petitioner’s conduct to be potentially contemptuous, it chose not to initiate contempt proceedings, giving him the benefit of doubt as he was arguing the matter without legal representation and might not have been fully aware of courtroom decorum and proper conduct.
However, the Court issued a cautionary note that repetition of such behaviour could attract legal consequences, including contempt proceedings.
Since the petitioner failed to take any remedial steps to cure the defects in the petition as initially directed, the Court dismissed the writ petition for default.
Cause Title: Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby & Anr., [2025:KER:50011]
