Judges Taking Up Cases Not Assigned By Chief Justice Is An Act Of ‘Gross Impropriety’: SC
In the corridors of justice, the role of judges and their adherence to the highest standards of propriety is of paramount importance. In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India issued a stark reminder of the duty of judges to maintain the sanctity of the Chief Justice’s roster. The verdict, pronounced in the case of Ambalal Parihar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 3233 of 2023), delivered on October 16, 2023, is a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.
The judgment, authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka for a distinguished Bench of the Apex Court, which included Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, sets a crucial precedent. It emphasizes the impropriety of judges taking up cases that have not been specifically assigned to them by the Chief Justice. The consequences of such actions are profound and have far-reaching implications for the legal system.
Setting the Stage: Leave Granted
The judgment commences with a straightforward declaration: “Leave granted.” This sets the stage for a legal discourse that is both enlightening and instructive. The importance of this leave should not be underestimated, as it signifies the court’s willingness to consider the matter in-depth.
Hearing of Counsel: The Legal Battlefield
The Bench goes on to state that they have heard the learned counsel representing the parties. This step is crucial as it acknowledges that the legal battlefield is set, and the arguments of both sides will be carefully considered. It lays the foundation for a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the case.
A Shocking Case of Abuse of Process of Law
The case under scrutiny unfolds as a shocking instance of an abuse of the legal process by the second to fourth respondents. The appellant, in this instance, registered six First Information Reports (FIRs) against these respondents. Furthermore, two other first informants had lodged two additional FIRs against the same respondents. The second to fourth respondents subsequently filed two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, seeking the quashing of these FIRs.
The High Court’s Verdict
The judgment proceeds to recount the orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in April 2023 concerning the two petitions filed by the second to fourth respondents. Importantly, no interim relief was granted at this juncture, setting the tone for subsequent legal proceedings.
An Extraordinary Step
The narrative then takes an extraordinary turn. On May 5, 2023, the second and fourth respondents took an unprecedented step by filing a Writ Petition on the civil side. This Writ Petition sought a writ of mandamus to consolidate the eight FIRs into one. The impugned order, which was delivered on May 8, 2023, directed that no coercive action be taken against the second to fourth respondents in connection with all eight FIRs. This was a pivotal moment in the case, as it laid the foundation for the subsequent legal battle.
The Appellant’s Allegations
The appellant made a serious allegation that relied on the prevailing roster notified by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The crux of the allegation was that the learned Single Judge, who was responsible for handling matters related to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not grant interim relief to the second to fourth respondents in two cases. Consequently, the second to fourth respondents resorted to filing a Civil Writ Petition with the objective of consolidating eight FIRs. This strategic move was perceived as an attempt to evade the roster Judge who had not granted interim relief. What makes this maneuver even more contentious is that, in both civil and criminal cases, the same advocate represented the second to fourth respondents.
Forum Shopping: A Classic Case
The judgment categorically characterizes this episode as a classic case of forum shopping by the second to fourth respondents. This term, “forum shopping,” is often used to describe the practice of choosing a specific legal jurisdiction or forum where a party believes they have a better chance of achieving a favorable outcome. This practice can undermine the integrity of the legal system and circumvent established legal procedures.
A Gross Abuse of Process of Law
The judgment leaves no room for ambiguity as it proclaims that this is a case of gross abuse of the legal process. The Court firmly asserts that allowing such practices undermines the roster system established by the Chief Justice. The critical principle outlined in this judgment is that judges must follow discipline and refrain from taking up cases that have not been specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. The act of a judge taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is deemed an act of ‘gross impropriety.’ This declaration underscores the need for judges to respect the hierarchical assignment of cases within the judicial system.
Implications for the Legal System
The implications of this judgment are profound and extend beyond the specific case at hand. It reaffirms the principles of judicial propriety, discipline, and adherence to the established roster. It sends a clear message to judges across the country that they must exercise the utmost care and discretion in taking up cases. Judges should not deviate from the assignments made by the Chief Justice, as doing so would be a grave breach of judicial decorum.
The judgment also highlights the importance of distinguishing between the civil and criminal sides of legal matters. In this case, the judge should have converted the Civil Writ Petition into a Criminal Writ Petition, which would have been within the jurisdiction of the roster Judge handling criminal writ petitions.
The Role of Costs
The judgment takes a notable step in mandating costs. It imposes a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the second to fourth respondents. This financial penalty is not arbitrary; it serves as a punitive measure against their misconduct. The cost must be paid to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within one month, and the receipt must be produced within six weeks. This financial penalty emphasizes the seriousness of the transgression and serves as a deterrent against future instances of misconduct.
A Fitting Conclusion
In conclusion, this judgment by the Supreme Court of India reaffirms the fundamental principles that govern the legal profession. It emphasizes the importance of judges adhering to the assignments made by the Chief Justice, thereby preserving the hierarchical and disciplined nature of the judiciary. It underscores the consequences of judges taking up cases not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice, terming it an act of ‘gross impropriety.’
This landmark judgment serves as a guiding light for the legal fraternity, reminding them of the ethical and professional standards that must be upheld. It also serves as a warning to those who may contemplate forum shopping or manipulating the legal process for personal gain.
The legal system’s integrity hinges on the commitment of judges to uphold the law and maintain the highest standards of propriety. The verdict in the Ambalal Parihar case is not just a legal judgment; it is a reaffirmation of the values that underpin the administration of justice in India. It stands as a testament to the judiciary’s dedication to justice and the rule of law.
In a society where justice is revered and the legal system is a cornerstone of democracy, such judgments are beacons of hope, ensuring that the principles of fairness, discipline, and integrity continue to guide the actions of judges and legal professionals. This case will serve as a reference point for future legal proceedings and a reminder of the solemn duty of judges to uphold the law, unwaveringly and without compromise.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ambalal Parihar case serves as a clear warning to judges across the country. The message is unequivocal: judges taking up cases not assigned by the Chief Justice commit an act of ‘gross impropriety.’ Judges must adhere to the Chief Justice’s roster and discipline themselves not to entertain cases outside their purview. This ruling reiterates the significance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and respecting the hierarchical assignments within it. It is a significant directive that reinforces the principles of judicial propriety and discipline.
Author Bio
