The Acting Chief
Justice, Date
27.10.2015
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Sub; Large scale ‘Forum shopping’
‘bench fixing/hunting’ in High Court. Question which arises: Who is
responsible for the same?
Sir,
Large scale ‘forum shopping’ ‘bench
fixing/hunting’ is going on in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh as under;-
1) Adjournments slips are filed only before a particular judge;
a) Because of Judge’s bias for or against the
advocate.
b) Because of Judge’s bias for or against his
party.
c) Because of personal leanings of a judge in
favor of or against the subject matter,
irrespective of advocate and his party.
The first two reasons amount to judge
violating his oath of office. One who suffers from a favor, affection or
ill-will for or against a party or advocate ceases to be a “judge” in that
case. In such cases adjournments may be justified to some extent. Judges should
not hear a case where they suffer from bias for or against any advocate or his
party. Such a Judge has no moral authority to Judge that case.
B) Adjournments managed before more than one judge. There are some advocates whose practice is not based on law but cream of
their practice is based before few select judges on account of favor, affection
and/or consideration given by few select judges to them. These advocates manage
adjournments from other Judges to get their cases decided by their ‘judges’ or
wait for the roster to come back to their ‘Judge’. These ‘advocates/Judges’ are
tarnishing the image of judiciary by indulging and encouraging ‘Forum shopping’
‘bench hunting/fixing’.
Adjournments are tools of ‘forum shopping’
‘bench fixing/hunting’. Perusal of adjournments in motions cases pending for
more than one year will give evidence of such cases which are being adjourned
on request on account of ‘forum shopping’ ‘bench fixing/hunting’. Hence
Legislature was seeking information on adjournments to expose and restrict
‘forum shopping’ ‘bench fixing/hunting’ and to make judiciary more responsive,
transparent and accountable to society which pays them. Does the judiciary have
the courage to bell and remove the black sheep in their fraternity? Does
judiciary owe a duty to society?
I
had mentioned in my letter Dt 23.4.2015 that J Suryakant is promoting,
encouraging ‘forum shopping’ by blatantly passing orders in favor of select
advocates; kith and kin, few advocates whose surnames are Sharmas, Balis (and
erstwhile advocate Pali for which I filed a formal complaint). Stay is granted
whenever they appear for petitioner and stay is vacated whenever they appear
for respondent. When they appear against each other case is either adjourned or
ordered to be listed before other bench. Law has NO relevance for such Judge.
They are hired/appear when case is before ‘their’ judge. Kith and Kin need
dignity not crutches.
C Has stranglehold of touts now increased to fixing Roster?
The advocates whose practice is limited to a
few select judges or handouts given to them by these judges, by getting them
appointed to Govt panels / Govt offices now have gone a step further. They now
want their judges to be in ‘their’ roster. It is well known that some advocates
be it kith and kin and few whose surnames are Sharmas, Balis appear in select cases
only when their case is listed before J Surya Kant. Before every other judge
they just seek/manage adjournments either themselves or through their colleague
thereby clogging the system. Now, they even boast of fixing the future roster,
hence this letter. It has come to my notice that Judge Surya Kant has promised
them that he will in the roster of HUID Haryana and UT and CAT in near future.
How far this can be true is not known, but I feel it my duty, to inform this
court about what is going on and allegedly being promised by J Surya Kant.
For information and necessary action.
SD/KD Aggarwal
Kith and Kin be taught to learn and practice
law. Touting is not a dignified profession.
sir I commend you on your effort.
ReplyDelete