Litigants cannot dictate the judge who should hear their case
Litigant's Submission Deemed Contemptuous
Kochi, July 8, 2025 - In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Asif Azad, citing default and contemptuous submissions made by the petitioner. The judgment, delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, underscored the fundamental principle that litigants cannot dictate which judge should hear their case, emphasizing the importance of roster allocation determined by the Chief Justice.
The petitioner, Asif Azad, appeared in person before the court, seeking to quash Exhibit P 5 of a complaint case lodged against him, citing violations of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 20, 21, and 141 of the Indian Constitution. Mr. Azad argued that the earlier imposition of costs against him in another proceeding by the same court demonstrated bias, requesting the court to refrain from hearing his case.
Justice Kunhikrishnan firmly rejected this submission, stating that the imposition of costs in one case does not imply bias or predisposition in others. He clarified that each case is judged on its own merits, and litigants cannot choose or dictate which judge should preside over their cases, as this would undermine the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process.
The court highlighted the contemptuous nature of Mr. Azad's submission, noting that while legal decorum may not have been clear to him due to his self-representation, future instances of similar conduct would invite legal action. The judgment serves as a reminder of the decorum expected in court proceedings, especially for those appearing in person.
During the proceedings, the court noted that Mr. Azad had failed to take necessary steps to cure defects in the petition despite being ordered to do so on June 13, 2025. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for default.
Justice Kunhikrishnan's decision reinforces the importance of the established judicial process, particularly the role of the Chief Justice in roster allocation, ensuring cases are heard impartially and without influence from external pressures or litigant preferences.
The Kerala High Court's judgment serves as a stern reminder to litigants about the decorum required in court and the impermissibility of attempting to influence judicial assignments. This ruling is expected to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process and prevent any future attempts at undermining the roster system.
Key Points from the Judgment:
1. Roster Allocation: The allocation of cases is determined by the roster prepared by the Chief Justice, and litigants cannot dictate which judge should hear their case.
2. Imposition of Costs: The imposition of costs in one case does not imply bias or predisposition in others; each case is judged on its own merits.
3. Contemptuous Submission: The court restrained from taking immediate action against Mr. Azad due to his lack of awareness of legal decorum, but warned that future instances of similar conduct would invite legal action.
4. Default Dismissal: The writ petition was dismissed for default as the petitioner failed to cure defects in the petition within the stipulated time.
The judgment is an important precedent in maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and emphasizes the decorum expected from litigants, particularly those representing themselves.
Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2750871
