What a Rajasthan High Court judge said on ‘frenzy’ of 1,600+ cases listed on a single day

A single-judge of the Rajasthan High Court recently took a strong view of the listing of more than 1,600 cases before it on a single day due to transfer of matters from another bench which was not holding court that day [Mitthan Lal Samariya vs State of Rajasthan]..Justice Arun Monga termed the situation chaotic when he saw a a staggering number of 1,609 cases spread across 145 pages of cause list before him. “If one were to take up the entire list, with only 5 hours allocated for court proceedings, each case would barely get a mere 10 seconds, during which, not only it has to be heard, but order/ proceedings have to be dictated too,” the Court observed in the order dated March 27..The Court added that the “mishmash” and “a perplexing maze” caused by the registry had made it difficult to differentiate the cases which were previously under its preview.“What baffles common sense is how the Registry anticipates this Bench to navigate through this labyrinthine situation, akin to unscrambling a scrambled egg,” it said.The situation was further exacerbated by lawyers anxiously mentioning their cases for urgent hearings. The Court noted that “frenzy” had consumed its considerable time before actual judicial work..The Registrar (Judicial) who was asked to explain how the Court was supposed to handle the situation could not provide a satisfactory answer. “The Registrar (Judicial) yielded little insight, with no satisfactory explanation forthcoming beyond the dismissive notion that such haphazard amalgamation is a customary practice when cases are listed before a substitute Judge due to another Judge not holding the Court,” the bench said.To prevent such a situation in future, the Court said certain preemptive measures must be taken to ensure seamless operation in the courtroom..It, therefore, passed the following directions,When cases from another Bench are listed before a substitute Bench, the two cause lists must be distinctly delineated.The two cause lists shall not be merged. Cases shall be listed in two segregated lists i.e. Cause List (I) and Cause List (II) with specific note in the respective cause lists by designating it as the routine list of the substitute Bench and the additional cause list of the Bench not holding court, respectivelyAlternatively, terms Cause List (A) and (B) may be employed for clarity, with corresponding annotations.Both lists shall thus be published the same way as before, except that the substitute courtroom number and name of the substitute Judge would be mentioned on the second cause list..[Read Order]