Lawyers practicing in the Madras High Court have raised concerns about the listing and handling of a substantial number of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs). The petitions, numbering 1,250, were scheduled for hearing before Justice G. Jayachandran on a single day, a move that has sparked anxiety among legal practitioners who fear a "mass hearing" might lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) has voiced these concerns, emphasizing the potential for these petitions to be dismissed en masse, citing the Supreme Court's verdict in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Versus State of Maharashtra (2021). The legal fraternity fears that such a rapid handling of their cases may not allow for a thorough examination of individual circumstances and could result in justice being denied.
Justice Jayachandran assumed the responsibility of handling cases related to Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs) on October 3, following a roster change by the High Court Registry. His predecessor, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, had held this portfolio but was transferred to the Madurai bench.
On the fateful Wednesday, Justice Jayachandran's courtroom witnessed the notification of three different lists of cases on that day's cause list. The first list featured around 97 matters comprising criminal original petitions and writ petitions that were heard. The second list included 23 connected election petitions and applications.
The third list, which took place after the lunch hour, contained a staggering 1,250 criminal original petitions related to the quashing of FIRs filed between 2022 and 2023. Notably, these cases were not connected to each other and involved a wide range of issues.
Amid the anticipation of a large crowd of lawyers gathered in the courtroom before the third list was taken up, Bar Council members RC Paul Kanagaraj and K Balu addressed the court on behalf of the legal community. They urged the court to consider each petition individually and examine them as they came up for hearing, emphasizing the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
Justice Jayachandran assured the lawyers that there was no need to overcrowd the court hall, stating that he would meticulously assess each case one by one, giving all parties a fair opportunity to present their arguments.
The judge explained that he had undertaken this exercise to determine which of the 1,250 petitions fell within the parameters set by the Supreme Court's judgment in the Neeharika Infrastructure case. In that ruling, the apex court had cautioned High Courts against issuing interim orders indiscriminately to restrain the police from taking coercive action.
Justice Jayachandran highlighted the significant backlog of nearly two lakh pending FIRs across police stations in the state. He noted that many investigations had stalled due to pending petitions seeking the quashing of FIRs, causing delays in resolving cases. Even in cases without a stay, police officers often cited the pending FIR quash petitions to keep FIRs unresolved for extended periods.
The judge requested the lawyers involved in the 1,250 petitions to voluntarily withdraw their cases if they believed they did not meet the parameters outlined in the Neeharika judgment. Furthermore, he warned that the court would impose costs on frivolous petitions that did not meet the criteria.
However, later in the evening, the court issued a notification directing the Registry to list all 1,250 matters together on October 18, leading to renewed concerns and apprehensions among lawyers.
Lawyers expressed worries regarding the administrative arrangement, as they believed that a judge could handle a maximum of 100 cases per day, raising questions about how all 1,250 petitions could be fairly and adequately addressed. Additionally, lawyers questioned the presumption that the previous judge may not have considered the parameters while passing interim orders on these matters.
The legal community emphasized that while a judge could certainly evaluate whether each case falls within the parameters set by the Neeharika judgment, this assessment could be made individually as each case comes up for further hearings, without the need for a collective evaluation of all petitions.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
