Judge taking up a case not specifically assigned by Chief Justice is gross impropriety: Supreme Court

A judge taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety, the Supreme Court recently said while hauling up three litigants for forum shopping [Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and ors]..Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal also urged judges to follow judicial discipline and not take up cases unless they are assigned to them as per the roster prepared by the Chief Justice.."The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. A Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety," the Court said. .The Court proceeded to impose costs of ₹50,000 on the three litigants who were found to have indulged in forum shopping. ."This is a shocking case of gross abuse of process of law ... the second to fourth respondents (three accused litigants) took a very extra ordinary step ... This is a classic case of forum hunting by the second to fourth respondents ... this is a case of gross abuse of process of law", the bench stated..By way of background, the three litigants in question were accused in eight criminal cases. After they were denied interim relief in criminal petitions heard by a Rajasthan High Court judge, they filed a separate civil writ petition which was placed before another judge. The civil plea contained prayers to club the First Information Reports (FIRs) against them. Notably, in the course of deciding on the civil case, the three accused were also granted interim relief.An informant/complainant (appellant) moved an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging this High Court order. The appellant alleged that the accused had filed the civil case to avoid the roster judge who had earlier not granted interim relief in the criminal petitions. He also pointed out that the same lawyer had filed both the criminal and civil writ petitions. .The Supreme Court flagged this as an abuse of the process of law and explained that prayers to club criminal complaints could not have been made in a civil writ petition. "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. If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning," the Supreme Court added. .The Supreme Court further opined that the civil writ petition ought to have been converted by the concerned judge into a criminal petition and should have been placed before the roster judge.The Court went on to allow the appeal by the complainant and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the three accused. ."This is a fit case where the second to fourth respondents must be saddled with costs. We quantify the costs amount at ₹50,000," the Supreme Court stated..The Registry of the Rajasthan High Court was also directed to place a copy of this order before the High Court bench hearing the criminal pleas by the three accused. .Advocates Pranab Prakash and Yash Chaturvedi appeared for the informant.Advocates Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Neha Kapoor, and Milind Kumar represented the Rajasthan government.Advocates Sanyat Lodha, Sanjana Saddy, and Surbhi Arora appeared for the private respondents (accused)..[Read Judgment]