Kerala HC Questions Maintainability Of Petitions Alleging Judicial Misconduct

Background

• The title of the case was Mathew Z Pulikunnel Vs. Chief Justice Of India.
• The petitioner was the owner of an apartment complex, which was demolished in 2012 by an order of the Supreme Court because it violated environmental norms.
• The petitioner who believed that judicial misconduct was involved in the process of the adjudication of this matter, filed a writ petition in the High Court.
• Through this petition, he urged the Chief Justice of India and the Kerala High Court, to initiate an in-house investigation against the sitting judges of the case, and take action for misconduct (if any).

Submission Of The Petitioner

• The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the current petition was relating to the administrative function of the Chief Justice and hence maintainable.
• Bringing the Court's attention to Article 226, the counsel held that nowhere is it explicitly given that the provision is not applicable against the Chief Justice.
• To support its case, the petitioner relied upon Pradyat Kumar Bose Vs Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, and Surendran P. Vs State by Inspector of Police.

Order Of The High Court

• Single-judge Justice PB Suresh Kumar at this stage did not go into the allegations of judicial misconduct but merely examined whether the pleas were maintainable.
• The court condemned the petition and questioned that if such cases were being filed, how could Judges exercise their duties fearlessly.
• He also made a preliminary remark and held that if such pleas are entertained, it will increase the apprehension of Judges which will, in turn, be detrimental to the process of justice dispensation.
• The court also ordered the counsel to familiarize themself with the case of Indira Jaising Vs Registrar General & Anr. and adjourned the matter to next Monday.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE CASE? SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW.