Point of Law: Lawyers are officers of Court; they are part of judiciary.

JUDGMENT :

1. Sir Thomas More, an English lawyer, Judge, Social Philosopher, Author, Statesman and noted Renaissance humanist framed a prayer for the lawyers, which is extracted hereunder:-

“Lord, grant that I may be able in argument, Accurate in analysis, strict in study, Candid with clients and honest with adversaries. Sit with me at my desk and listen with me to my client's plaints, read with me in my library, And stand beside me in Court so that today I shall not, In order to win a point, lose my soul."

2. The petitioner, who claims to be a lawyer practising in this Court and different other courts in India, including the Apex Court, and also having 22 years of practice, filed this writ petition with “strange reliefs”. It will be better to extract the reliefs in this writ petition.

(i)To issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No.4 to have a standard criterion for listing of matters before the various courts in the High Court of Kerala in accordance with the directions of the Respondent No.1 who is the Master of the Roster.

(ii) To declare that a minimum of 50 matters be listed before every Court in the High Court in addition to a 'final disposal' list considering the pendency of matters before the High Court and the right of litigants to Speedy Justice which is a fundamental right recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) To declare that no Judge of the High Court has a right to direct the listing department to curtail the number of matters listed in accordance with the precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(iv) To direct Respondent No.2 to devise a system by which they can track the number of matters being heard by a High Court Judge every day, the number of disposals and report these numbers to the Chief Justice so as to keep track of the performance of each Judge of the High Court.

(v) Pass such other further Order/Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.“

3. The 1st respondent in this writ petition is the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala. The 2nd respondent is the Union of India, represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice. The 3rd respondent is a learned judge of this Court. The 4th respondent is the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala. It will be beneficial to narrate the pleadings in this writ petition as such for proper consideration of the entire issue.

4. The Petitioner is an advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Kerala, and it is stated that he has a 'counsel' practice in different High Courts and Tribunals. The petitioner explains the 'counsel' practice as a situation where the advocate does not file a vakalath but pleads before the Court on instructions of the advocate who has filed the Vakalath.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner had occasion to appear before the Court of the 3rd respondent Judge on 09.02.2023. It is submitted that in the petitioner's 22 years of practice as a lawyer, he has not come across a Judge so wantonly acting in breach of the governing principles of law or procedure. It is also stated in the writ petition that respondent No.3 dismissed a case in which the petitioner appeared, and till the filing of the writ petition, he has not given a certified copy of the order, which was applied for on the same day on which the order was dictated. The petitioner, in discharge of his duty as an advocate, was constrained to file an in-house complaint against the 3rd respondent with the 1st respondent in accordance with the in-house procedure adopted by the Full Court of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.12.1999 is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioner was informed that the 3rd respondent was lethargic as regards the issuance of certified copies of the orders, and the 3rd respondent listed only 20 items per day in his Court. It is stated in the writ petition that the advocates and litigants have to wait endlessly for even a listing of their matter before the 3rd respon