The Kerala High Court has firmly ruled that litigants cannot demand which judge should hear their case, emphasizing that judicial assignments are governed solely by the roster notified by the Chief Justice. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered this ruling while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 33689 of 2024, filed by Asif Azad, for default.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Asif Azad, appearing as party-in-person, had approached the High Court seeking to set aside Exhibit P8 and quash Exhibit P5 related to Complaint Case No. ST 2600/2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – I, Kottarakkara, Kollam. The complaint had been filed by respondent Jaimon Baby.
Azad claimed violation of his constitutional and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, 21, and 141 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was represented after curing initial defects, and a petition for condonation of a 40-day delay in representation was allowed, with notice issued to the first respondent. The notice, however, was returned with the endorsement “addressee left.”
Court’s Observations:
When the matter was taken up on June 13, 2025, the Court directed the petitioner to cure the defects within two weeks, warning that failure to do so would result in the matter being posted to the defect list.
On July 8, 2025, during the online hearing, Azad made a submission requesting that Justice Kunhikrishnan avoid hearing the case, citing the imposition of costs on him in a previous proceeding.
Justice Kunhikrishnan categorically rejected this submission, stating in the judgment:
“The imposition of cost in one case will never lead to the imposition of cost in all the cases filed by the petitioner. Each case will be decided based on the merit of that particular case.”
He further underscored:
“A litigant cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a Judge. The roster is prepared by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble Chief Justice as per the roster. If such a practice is started, the litigants can pick and choose the Judge who has to hear their case. The same cannot be allowed.”
The Court noted that although the petitioner’s submissions were contemptuous, no action was taken against him, keeping in mind that he was appearing in person and might not be fully aware of court decorum. However, Justice Kunhikrishnan cautioned that similar conduct in the future would compel the Court to act according to law.
Decision:
Since the petitioner had failed to cure the procedural defects as ordered on June 13, 2025, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for default.
- Case Title: Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby & State of Kerala
- Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 33689 of 2024
