Madras High Court warns against impleadment of unnecessary parties (again); says heavy costs may be imposed in future on errant petitioners

The Madras High Court on Friday reiterated that those who are not required to be part of a case should not be unnecessarily impleaded in petitions, adding that petitioners who erroneously do so will be heavily penalised in the future. (Mohammed Ali Jinna v. The Chief Manager and anr).The warning was recorded in an interim order passed on Friday by a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu in a case in which the Court noticed that an unnecessary party had been impleaded "probably for the benefit of the legal fraternity."."Any future erroneous impleadment of unnecessary party would result in petitioner being heavily penalised," the Court cautioned. .Arbitrators, tribunals and like persons are not necessary to be arraigned as respondents when awards or orders passed by such adjudicatory authorities are assailed unless personal allegations are levelled against the members fhe are tribunal or the concerned tribunal, the Court explained. .The Court recalled that previous orders have also been passed on this issue, "but the ill-advised practice continues". ."As indicated above, only the award of appropriate costs may correct the malaise," the Bench further remarked, before adjourning the case before it by a fortnight. .Interestingly, a few cases down the line the Court was informed of yet another instance where an unnecessary party was needlessly impleaded. (Thondan Subramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu and 4 ors).In a PIL calling for winding up the Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry tasked with probing the death of former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, the Court was urged to delete the name of the judge from the array of respondents. .The Court acceded to the request, adding in its order that, "This is yet another case where a retired judge of this Court who is the chairperson of a Commission of Inquiry is needlessly impleaded withtout personal allegations levelled against him.".In any event, the official respondents are represented, the Court noted further..The PIL was adjourned by three weeks in view of Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram's submission that a case concerning the Commission of Inquiry is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court on August 25. He added that 90 percent of the inquiry had earlier been completed before the Supreme Court issued a stay in 2019. .He urged for an adjournment before the High Court, pointing out that it has to be seen whether the Supreme Court is going to continue the stay, quash the committee or issue some other direction when it hears the matter on August 25. .The malaise of impleading unnecessary parties in matters had come under the High Court's scanner last week as well when the Court observed that adjudicating authorities or arbitrators and arbitral tribunals are “needlessly impleaded” even though there is no attack on such parties in the petitions..“Unless allegations are leveled against the adjudicating authorities qua the conduct of the adjudicator or against the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal on grounds of misconducting themselves or misconducting the proceedings at the personal level, adjudicating authorities and arbitrators or arbitral tribunals are … avoidable parties whose names are to be struck off at the receiving stage of the petitions unless it is indicated that personal allegations have been levelled against them,” the Court had said..Registry should restrain itself and not delve into judicial acts: Madras High Court after Registry asks petitioner to separate connected pleas.At the time, the Court had also directed the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure that the receiving personnel at the Registry are made aware of these elementary principles. Further, the Court had suggested that a training programme be conducted at the judicial academy as expeditiously as possible so that such mistakes are not repeated..[Read Order]