Judges Taking Up Cases Not Assigned By Chief Justice Is An Act Of 'Gross Impropriety': SC

While most specifically drawing the clear red lines for Judges which they should always take greatest care not to ever dare to cross, the Apex Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors in Criminal Appeal No. 3233 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 8027 of 2023) and cited in Neutral Citation No. 2023 INSC 946 and so also cited in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922 that was pronounced as recently as on October 16, 2023 has minced just no words to hold most unambiguously that the Judges should refrain from taking up cases that are not specifically assigned to them by the Chief Justice of the Court. It cannot be just glossed over that the Apex Court also pointed out very rightly that if not, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have just no meaning. How can this ever be permitted to happen? This is the moot point! Not stopping here, the Apex Court also did not restrain itself from holding most forthrightly that Judges taking up cases not assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'. It thus definitely merits no reiteration of any kind that the Judges must definitely pay heed to what the Apex Court has directed so very clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon'ble Mr Justice Pankaj Mithal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "Leave granted."

Needless to say, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, "Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties."

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, "This is a shocking case of gross abuse of process of law by the second to fourth respondents. At the instance of the appellant, six First Information Reports were registered against the second to fourth respondents. There were two other First Information Reports registered against the same respondents by some other first informants. Two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing the First Information Reports filed at the instance of the other first informants."

As we see, the Bench points out in para 4 stating that, "Our attention is invited to the orders passed on the two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") filed by the second to fourth respondents. The petitions came up before a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in April, 2023 in which no interim relief was granted."

Further, it is worth mentioning that the Bench then discloses in para 5 mentioning precisely that, "Thereafter, the second to fourth respondents took a very extra ordinary step. On 5th May, 2023 a Writ Petition was filed on the civil side by the second and fourth respondents in which a prayer was made for issuing a writ of mandamus for clubbing the eight First Information Reports and consolidating them into one. The impugned order has been passed in the said Civil Writ Petition on 8th May, 2023. The learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the second to fourth respondents in connection with all eight First Information Reports."

As things stands, the Bench then specifies in para 6 stating that, "The appellant has made a very serious allegation by relying upon the then prevailing roster notified by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The allegation is that as the learned Single Judge taking up assignment of the criminal matters dealing with Section 482 CrPC did not grant interim relief to the second to fourth respondents in two cases, this method of filing a Civil Writ Petition was invented in which a prayer was made for consolidation of eight First Information Reports. The allegation is that this was done to avoid the roster Judge who had not granted interim relief. Not only that this course was adopted, the second to fourth respondents in the Civil Writ Petition prayed for interim relief directing that no coercive action shall be taken against the second to fourth respondents in relation to all eight First Information Reports. The complainants were not impleaded in the Civil Writ Petitions. Interestingly, both in civil and criminal cases, the same advocate represented the second to fourth respondents."

Quite significantly, the Bench then hastens to add in para 7 propounding that, "This is a classic case of forum hunting by the second to fourth respondents. It transpires that notwithstanding the aforesaid relief granted on 8th May, 2023 in the Civil Writ Petition, in the petitions under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing, on 1st June, 2023 the second to fourth respondents persuaded the concerned Bench to grant relief of not taking coercive action against them."

Most significantly, most sagaciously, most forthrightly and most commendably, the Bench minces just no words to hold unequivocally in para 8 that, "Thus, this is a case of gross abuse of process of law. We wonder how a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports could be entertained. In the roster notified by the Chief Justice, there is a separate roster for Criminal Writ Petitions. If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning. The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. A Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety. Though a Civil Writ Petition was filed, the learned Judge ought to have converted into a Criminal Writ Petition which could have been placed only before the roster Judge taking up Criminal Writ Petitions."

Be it noted, the Bench then notes aptly in para 9 that, "We are sure that this conduct of the second to fourth respondents will be considered by the concerned Court taking up petitions under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Reports."

It is certainly worth noting here that the Bench then deems it entirely appropriate to mandate in para 10 succinctly stating that, "This is a fit case where the second to fourth respondents must be saddled with costs. We quantify the costs amount at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand)."

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 11 that, "Hence, we allow the appeal by passing the following order:

(a) We hold that action of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.6277 of 2023 by the second to fourth respondents was nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and it was a classic case of forum hunting;

(b) Accordingly, we dismiss SB Civil Writ Petition No.6277 of 2023. Therefore, the impugned order does not survive;

(c) We direct the second to fourth respondents to pay costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today and to produce the receipt before this Court within a period of six weeks from today;

(d) As narrated earlier, the conduct of the second to fourth respondents shall be brought to the notice of the concerned Court which is hearing petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed by the second to fourth respondents; and

(e) We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court to place a copy of this order in all eight petitions under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing First Information Reports."

All in all, we thus see that it is quite discernibly clear that the Apex Court has sent out a very loud, firm and unequivocal message to all the Judges functioning in different Courts all over the country that Judges taking up cases not assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'. There can be thus no gainsaying that Judges must definitely pay heed to what the Apex Court has held so decisively and sagaciously in this leading case and always refrain indubitably from taking up cases that are not assigned specifically by the Chief Justice. We ought to note that it was also clarified most clearly in this remarkable judgment that a Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. We also ought to note that it was also made absolutely clear by the Apex Court that the Judge ought not to have entertained such a civil petition for the clubbing of the FIRs when the jurisdiction for such matters is on the criminal side. Of course, there can be just no denying or disputing it!