MP High Court Bar Flags Grave Concerns Over Case Listing, Roster Allocation to Chief Justice

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association has formally escalated significant concerns regarding judicial administration, writing to the Chief Justice to highlight a series of procedural and policy-related grievances that it claims are impeding access to justice and affecting the functioning of the court. The detailed letter, dated November 26, outlines systemic issues ranging from the arbitrary discontinuation of established case-listing practices to the controversial management of judicial rosters, prompting the Association to schedule a general body meeting to determine its future course of action.

The representation from the Bar underscores a growing sense of frustration among advocates over what they perceive as opaque and inefficient administrative practices. The letter, backed by signed applications from hundreds of lawyers, serves as a formal appeal to the head of the state judiciary to intervene and restore procedural certainty.

Breakdown of the Grievances

The letter systematically details multiple points of contention that are affecting the day-to-day practice of law at the High Court. These issues, if left unaddressed, could have profound implications for litigants and the timely dispensation of justice.

1. Discontinuation of Drop Boxes and Listing Uncertainty

A primary concern is the sudden closure of court slip drop boxes. This system, previously a cornerstone of the listing process, allowed advocates to submit court slips to request tentative hearing dates for their matters. Its removal has reportedly created significant inconvenience and unpredictability.

"The letter stated that the earlier system of slip drop boxes enabled the advocates to request tentative listing dates efficiently using their court slips," a source familiar with the letter noted. Without this mechanism, advocates face increased difficulty in scheduling matters, leading to delays and a lack of clarity on when cases will be heard.

2. The Ambiguity of "Non-Reach" Cases

The Association has highlighted the absence of a formal policy for handling "non-reach" cases—matters that are listed for a particular day but are not taken up due to a lack of time. The letter points out that these cases, once adjourned, are often not re-listed in a timely or predictable manner. This procedural vacuum extends to cases where a specific future date for hearing was fixed via a court slip, which are also reportedly not being scheduled as intended. This creates a backlog of unheard matters and forces lawyers and litigants into a state of perpetual uncertainty.

3. Backlog of Bail and FIR Quashing Petitions

The letter raises specific concerns about the mounting pendency of certain types of cases. Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the corresponding Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which typically seek the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs), are not being listed.

Given the urgency often associated with such petitions, the delay in their hearing can have severe consequences for the individuals involved. The Association has argued that it is not feasible to hear these complex matters alongside the already burdened bail roster. Consequently, they have "called for the formation of a separate Bench to hear such matters."

Similarly, the letter suggests a practical solution to reduce the backlog of pending bail applications before the court's winter vacation in December. With five Division Benches currently functional, the Bar has proposed that assigning bail matters to judges in the post-lunch session could significantly expedite their disposal.

4. Roster Management and "Relief-Oriented Judges"

Perhaps the most sensitive issue raised in the letter pertains to the allocation of judicial work. The Bar has voiced apprehension that certain "relief-oriented judges" are either not being assigned important rosters or are being subjected to frequent and seemingly arbitrary roster changes.

This practice, the letter warns, has a corrosive effect on the institution. It "may needlessly affect perceptions of their integrity and fairness," casting unwarranted suspicion on judges known for a particular judicial philosophy. Such actions can be perceived as an attempt to influence judicial outcomes and undermine the principles of judicial independence and fairness that are foundational to the "Master of the Roster" system.

5. Procedural Hurdles in Contempt Cases

The advocates also flagged difficulties in filing contempt of court petitions. A new requirement mandates that advocates file copies of all cases and judgments referenced in the original writ petition orders along with the contempt case. This is described as a cumbersome and difficult procedural hurdle that complicates the process of holding parties accountable for non-compliance with court orders.

6. Erosion of Institutional Reputation

In a striking admission of internal strife, the letter expresses deep concern that the High Court's reputation is being damaged by the public airing of disagreements among judges. The letter states that "allegations or counter-allegations among judges are being publicised in one way or another among lawyers," a development that threatens to tarnish the esteemed image of the judiciary and erode public confidence.

The Bar's Call to Action

The gravity of the situation is underscored by the Association's decision to call for a general body meeting on Monday, December 1, 2025. This meeting will serve as a forum for advocates to discuss the administrative challenges and deliberate on potential solutions and further actions. The letter to the Chief Justice is positioned as a final appeal for administrative course correction before the Bar considers more drastic measures.

The letter concludes with a respectful appeal to the Chief Justice to consider the plethora of issues raised and to take immediate steps towards their resolution. The collective voice of the Bar seeks a return to a transparent, predictable, and efficient system of court administration that facilitates, rather than obstructs, the pursuit of justice. The response from the Chief Justice's office will be closely watched, as it will determine the future relationship between the Bar and the Bench in Madhya Pradesh and set a precedent for how such administrative crises are handled within the Indian judiciary.