Advocates have no right to demand out of turn listing of their cases: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently said that advocates have no right to demand out of turn listing of their cases except through established procedures in urgent matters [Charles Alexander Vs Registrar General]

A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by advocate LK Charles Alexander, who had sought a direction to the High Court Registry to list 21 pending cases filed by him on behalf of his clients.

"An individual litigant or counsel has no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, save through established exceptional protocols,” the Court said.

Alexander, who appeared in person, claimed that several civil miscellaneous appeals, civil revision petitions, criminal original petitions and writ petitions had not been listed for a long time despite repeated letters to the court registry.

He sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar General of the Madras High Court and the Additional Registrar General of the Madurai Bench to list the matters immediately.

The petitioner also alleged that administrative lapse had caused him mental distress, since he was answerable to his clients.

The Court said it had sympathy for the professional anxieties of a young member of the Bar. However, it held that Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used as an administrative tool to bypass the High Court’s established listing procedures.

“The administrative authority to control the flow of litigation is an essential facet of judicial independence and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Registry to bypass or disrupt the allocation of cases as per roster,” the Court said.

The Bench also took note of the “Herculean administrative challenges” faced by the registry.

It said listing of cases was not a mechanical exercise of data entry. The registry has to process thousands of fresh filings every week, apart from matters that are already pending, the Court noted.

To maintain fairness among litigants, cases must generally follow a chronological or category-wise queue, the Bench added.

The Bench cautioned that if every advocate whose case is delayed was allowed to file a writ petition against the registry, the Court would be flooded with internal litigation. This would effectively paralyse the administration of justice, it said.

The Bench clarified that the petitioner was not without a remedy.

If a matter is genuinely urgent or has drifted into procedural limbo, counsel could submit a formal praecipe or mention memo before the judge or Bench holding the roster, the Court clarified.

Alternatively, the petitioner could submit a comprehensive representation to the Registrar (Judicial), who has the administrative mandate to rectify listing discrepancies, if any, it added.

The Court said allowing the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly placed litigants by judicial order would violate the principle of equal access to justice.

It, therefore, dismissed the petition.

Advocate M Kempraj appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]