Lawyers Have No Vested Right To Demand Priority Listing Of Cases: Madras HC [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a practising advocate seeking a mandamus to direct the Registry, at both its Principal Seat and its Madurai Bench, to forthwith list twenty-one of his pending matters, holding that no litigant or counsel has a vested or fundamental right to demand that a case be listed ahead of others merely because it has remained pending for some time.

The petitioner, L.K. Charles Alexander, appeared in person and told the Court that several Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, Civil Revision Petitions, Criminal Original Petitions and Writ Petitions filed by him on behalf of his clients had failed to find a place in the daily cause-lists despite repeated letters of request to the Registry. He submitted that this administrative lapse had caused him significant mental distress and sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Registry to list the matters immediately.

The Court, while expressing sympathy for the professional anxieties of a young member of the Bar who feels answerable to his litigants, held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used as an administrative tool to bypass the High Court's established listing procedures. It observed that the administrative authority to control the flow of litigation is an essential facet of judicial independence, and that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Registry to disrupt the roster-based allocation of cases. An individual litigant or counsel, the Court held, has no vested or fundamental right to have a matter listed ahead of cases instituted earlier in time, except through established exceptional protocols.

The Bench also took judicial notice of what it called the "Herculean" administrative challenges faced by the Registry, noting that listing is not a mechanical exercise of data entry, and that the Registry processes thousands of fresh filings every week alongside matters already pending, requiring cases generally to follow a chronological or category-wise queue. It cautioned that if every advocate whose case was delayed were permitted to file a writ petition against the Registry, the Court would be flooded with internal litigation, effectively paralysing the administration of justice, adding that mandamus is a discretionary remedy reserved for enforcing a clear statutory right or correcting a palpable breach of legal duty, and that no such breach existed in the present case.

The Court clarified that the petitioner was not without a remedy, but that his choice of forum and format was flawed. It pointed to two established avenues open to him: first, where a matter carries genuine urgency or has drifted into procedural limbo, counsel may submit a formal praecipe or mention memo before the Judge or Bench holding the relevant roster, leaving it to that Bench's discretion whether to expedite the listing; and second, the petitioner could submit a comprehensive representation to the Registrar (Judicial), who holds the administrative mandate to rectify listing discrepancies.

The Court further held that equity demanded all litigants be treated with equal dignity, and that permitting the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly placed litigants by judicial fiat would violate the principle of equal access to justice. Holding that the relief sought could not be granted within the parameters of Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. L.K. Charles Alexander (appearing in person); For the Respondents: Mr. M. Kempraj.

Case Title: L.K. Charles Alexander v. The Registrar General, Madras High Court & Anr.

[Read Order]