Litigants can't dictate which judge should hear their case: Kerala High Court

Litigants cannot dictate or be allowed to pick and choose which judge should hear their case, observed the Kerala High Court recently [Asif Azad v Jaimon Baby & anr].

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan made the observation while dismissing a writ petition for default over certain defects noticed in the same.

Notably, the Court also took exception to the refusal of the petitioner, who appeared in person, to argue the case on the ground that the same judge had earlier imposed a cost on him in another matter.

The Court clarified that there is a roster system which decides which judge hears which case. This roster system is determined by the Chief Justice and must be respected by all litigants, Justice 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," the Court said.

The petition before the Court was filed by a lawyer named Asif Azad, who sought directions to quash a cheque dishonour case against him.

Initially, the writ petition was returned due to defects noticed in its filing, and the petitioner was directed to cure such defects within two weeks.

Despite this, no steps were taken.

When the matter was taken up later on July 8, Azad, who appeared personally through video conferencing, refused to argue the case and insisted that Justice Kunhikrishnan should not hear the case since the judge had earlier imposed costs on Azad in another case. The petitioner urged the judge to recuse himself from the matter.

The judge, however, rejected this argument and clarified that each case is decided on its own merits, irrespective of earlier outcomes involving the same party.

"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."

Justice Kunhikrishnan further remarked that while a judge may choose to recuse from hearing a case, no litigant can demand that a matter be heard by a different judge just because of an unfavourable past decision.

Even though the Court found the petitioner's conduct 'contemptuous', it chose not to take any action, considering he appeared without legal counsel and may not be aware of courtroom decorum.

However, the Court warned that any repetition of such behaviour could invite action under the law.

Since the petitioner did not take any steps to cure the defects, as directed earlier, the Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition for default.

Advocate Asif Azad appeared in person.

Senior public prosecutor CS Hrithwik appeared for the State.

[Read Order]