Administrative side of High Court cannot seek review of judicial order: Madras High Court

The High Court administration has no power to seek review of any orders passed on the judicial side, the Madras High Court recently said [The High Court of Judicature at Madras, rep. by its Registrar General v. Thirumalai]..Justice PT Asha dismissed a review application filed by the Madras High Court through its Registrar General seeking that a judgment passed by the Court in May last year be reviewed..The judgment sought to be reviewed was passed by Justice Asha herself on May 5 last year. In that verdict, she had directed the Tamil Nadu (TN) government to effect necessary amendments to the TN Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunals Rules with regard to payment of court fees.The Court had also issued guidelines to regulate the exemption of court fees under the MV Act until the amendment was brought in by the State. These guidelines mandated, among other things, that claimants seeking such exemption must submit an affidavit saying they do not possess the wherewithal to pay the court fee despite having a salaried income. This affidavit must be sworn before the Notary, the High Court had held..As per procedure, Justice Asha had sent the judgment to the office of the then acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for it to be circulated to all tribunals. The acting CJ, however, sent it to the administrative committee of the High Court to check if the judgment needed to be reviewed. Thereafter, the present review application was filed.The review application claimed that the judgment caused prejudice to the claimants. Justice Asha, however, asked how the administrative side of the High Court could seek review of a judgment when it was not the aggrieved party. She said that it amounted to the Court issuing a writ against itself and wondered if the Court was acting like "Janus," the two-faced God from Greek mythology."I am faced with a rather strange conundrum of the High Court on its Administrative side seeking leave to review an order passed by it on its judicial side, particularly when the High Court is not even a party to the proceedings leave alone an aggrieved party. Is this Court therefore confronting a two faced JANUS?" the order stated..On the apprehension expressed in the review plea that the guidelines issued in the judgment would cause prejudice to claimants, the order stated,"Therefore, the guidelines passed by this Court asking a claimant to file an affidavit is only to state that despite he being an earning member he does not have the wherewithal to pay a court fee. This is in the interest of the claimant who will not be forced to prove his indigent circumstances. This by no stretch of imagination can be called prejudicial to the interest of the claimant. Further, the direction asking for the affidavit to be sworn before a notary public is only to ensure its authenticity. Therefore, the need to review these guidelines that too by the Court which is not the aggrieved party does not arise...".The Court went on to say that Article 215 of the Constitution gave a small window to the courts to correct its errors. Such right, however, was conferred on the High Court only on its judicial side, it said. Citing a previous judgment in Karthick Theodre v. Registrar General, which discussed the powers of the Madras High Court of Madras flowing from the Letters Patent of 1865, it was noted that the High Court was one indivisible institution and a writ against its judgment would mean the Court issuing a writ against itself. "Therefore, the present petition seeking leave to review which does not come within the parameters supra, cannot be entertained as it would amount to undermining the Judicial fibre whose touchstone is its fierce independence and to discharge its duty without any kind of fear or favour," the Court said. .Special Government Pleader Edwin Prabhakar and Advocate M Santhanaraman appeared for the petitioner Madras High Court. Advocate Sharath Chandran was the amicus curiae in the matter..[Read Judgment]