Kerala High Court and Justice Mary Joseph
The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a plea moved by a lawyer alleging that only very limited number of cases are listed each day before one of the sitting judges of the High Court – Justice Mary Joseph [Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala & Ors.].
The appellant, advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy filed the initial petition to challenge the curtailment of the list of cases before Justice Mary Joseph to around 20 cases a day when most judges have over 100 cases listed before them each day
A division bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas dismissed the appeal filed by advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy (appellant) challenging a single-judge order dismissing his plea.
The plea claimed that only 20 cases were being listed in a day before Justice Joseph when most judges have over 100 cases listed before them each day.
The division bench opined that the petition was engineered with malafide intention to defame Justice Joseph.
The High Court underscored that one cannot dictate the court to list the cases in the manner they want and that listing of cases is a prerogative of the administrative side of the High Court.
The Court also took objection to the appellant making the sitting judge a party to the case.
“He could not have made the judge of this High Court in party array as the judge of the High Court cannot be made a litigant who can answer all the allegations raised by the counsel.”
The argument by the appellant was that the court’s registry had admitted that causelist for Justice Joseph’s court was being prepared with her permission.
Since the listing is a process entrusted with the registry, it has to be carried out under the direction of the Chief Justice who is the master of the roster and consulting the concerned judge would go against the directions of the Supreme Court.
“The direction of the Supreme Court is clear that no judge can interfere with the listing of cases. Listing of cases is a process of the registry and no judge can interfere with that process,” said the appellant.
He also claimed that no causelist in any of the High Courts or the Supreme Court is curtailed to 20 matters a day.
Regarding to the dismissal of his petition by the single-judge, the appellant said that the single-judge confused ‘listing’ with ‘hearing’ and adjudicated on a non-issue.
“The single-judge, in violation of the precedents of the Supreme Court abused his powers as a judge and made a personal attack on the petitioner, who is also an advocate,” said the appeal.
He alleged that the single-judge’s attack was not based on any facts but but was based on perceptions.
However, the High Court on Friday dismissed the appeal.
