High Court cannot direct speedy disposal of cases in routine manner; courts must regulate own procedure: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has said that High Courts cannot issue directions to subordinate courts for speedy disposal of matters as a matter of routine, and that lower courts must regulate their own procedure in disposing of matters [S Baby v. S Sakkubai Ammal]. .Justice SM Subramaniam refused relief to a petitioner who had sought directions to the Principal Subordinate Judge of Villupuram district in Tamil Nadu for "speedy disposal" of a suit that he had instituted seven years ago."High Court is not expected to issue any such direction for speedy disposal of cases in a routine manner. Several such cases are pending before the District Judiciary. All such cases are also to be disposed of consistently and in uniform manner without causing any discrimination amongst the litigants. Several litigants are longing to get justice from various Courts and therefore, merely issuing a direction in one case High Court cannot discriminate the litigants and it is for the Court concerned to regulate its own proceedings in respect of the disposal of the cases on its board," the order stated..The petitioner's counsel had argued that the suit had remained pending for seven years mainly because "of unnecessary adjournments" granted by the local court on "flimsy grounds." Justice Subramaniam, however, said that the High Court cannot intervene in every matter that remains pending before the lower courts. He further said that all courts and litigants must remember that adjournments were to be treated as exceptions, and the rule was to conduct hearings whenver a matter was scheduled for hearing. The Court further said that often, litigants themselves sought repeated adjournments, or filed interlocutory applications to prolong trials if they were not sure of getting a favourable order."The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice..." the order stated..It was noted that in the present case, while the petitioner had approached the High Court claiming that his suit had remained pending for seven years, "mere length of time" for which a case had remained pending was not a criteria for issuing directions for expedited hearings. "High Court cannot issue directions to the District Judiciary for speedy disposal of cases in a routine manner. Frequent directions if issued, would not provide a practical solution. Overburdening with litigations on Board is to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The routine directions for speedy disposal, if it is issued, it would further cause unnecessary pressure on the District Judiciary. In many such cases, wherein directions are issued, the District Judiciary has come out with administrative letters, seeking extension of time again and again and thus, the purpose for which such directions were issued by the High Court became defeated," it said..[Read order]