All are equal: Supreme Court turns down former district judge's plea to list his case on priority

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to pass directions to fast-track the hearing of a case filed by a former district judge before the Allahabad High Court challenging his alleged illegal termination from service.

A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution of India does not permit such out-of-turn interventions merely because the litigant is a former judicial officer.

Emphasizing that every citizen stands on equal footing regardless of their official station, the Court observed,

“Whether he (a litigant) is a bus peon or even the Principal Secretary of the State, it does not make a difference. Everyone has an equal right to access justice. Therefore, in this space of constitutional equality, we would not create individualistic interventions.”

The former district judge's counsel today told the top court that due to a heavy backlog, the High Court had yet to decide his plea challenging his termination from service.

"The matter is pending before the Allahabad High Court, which is burdened with cases, and it is taking time," the counsel said.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that if it would be unfair to other litigants if directions were issued to the High Court to list the former judge's plea on priority.

The Court had initially indicated that the district judge's plea could be considered further by a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who is not holding court today.

However, after the petitioner's counsel pressed for faster relief, the Court decided to dismiss the plea.

“Since you are pressing it. We will dismiss. (You are asking us to) pass an order which is fair to the litigant before us and unfair to the multitude of litigants who are not before us. So we will not pass such an order. No fact will help in this," said Justice Bagchi.

The Court made it clear that sympathetic considerations for the former district judge before it cannot come at the cost of countless other litigants waiting their turn.

“We are loath to entertain this petition, since any sympathetic consideration of inordinate delay will lead to unfair treatment of litigants who are not before this Court. Thus, we pass an order so that the petition may be pursued before the appropriate court," the Court ordered.

When counsel reiterated the petitioner’s former judicial office, the Court firmly rebuked the argument.

“You are making a submission which is against the basic ideal of every citizen, irrespective of his station in office, to have equal access to justice ... Any expeditious application before us, unless we are convinced of some egregious breach by the High Court or an unfair or dishonest statement, we place the same condition," Justice Bagchi said.

[Read Live Coverage]