Supreme Court dismisses lawyer’s plea seeking listing of 21 cases before Madras High Court

The advocate had sought directions to the Madras High Court registry for listing 21 cases filed on behalf of his clients.
Supreme Court and Case Listing
Supreme Court and Case Listing
Published on: 
2 min read
Listen to this article

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an advocate’s plea challenging a Madras High Court order rejecting his plea for listing of 21 pending cases filed by him on behalf of his clients [LK Charles Alexander v. Registrar General, Madras High Court].

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision.

“The registry works under the orders of whom? Tell us. Have you ever seen what the cause list says at the end? Published under the orders of the Chief Justice. You want a direction to the Chief Justice. Dismissed,” Justice Nath said.

Advocate LK Charles Alexander told the Court that he had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions for the listing of the cases pending there.

“You filed a writ of mandamus before the High Court to direct other courts to take up your matters?” Justice Nath asked.

“To direct the registry, My Lords,” Alexander clarified.

Justice Nath then asked whether Alexander was a lawyer. After he answered in the affirmative, the Court dismissed his plea.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

Alexander had approached the Madras High Court alleging that 21 cases filed by him on behalf of his clients had not been listed despite repeated requests to the registry.

On July 3, a division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed his petition, holding that writ petitions could not be used to bypass established listing procedures.

The High Court said that lawyers and litigants had no vested or fundamental right to have their matters listed ahead of earlier-filed cases, except by following the prescribed procedure for seeking urgent listing.

It pointed out that Alexander could submit a mention memo before the bench handling the relevant roster or make a representation to the Registrar (Judicial) regarding any listing discrepancies.

Alexander subsequently challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.

[Read Live Coverage]

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com