Can Litigants Choose Their Judge? Kerala High Court Says No

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court made it very clear: litigants cannot pick and choose which judge should hear their case. This important observation came from Justice PV Kunhikrishnan while dismissing a writen petition due to a filing defect.

The case involved a lawyer named Asif Azad, who had filed a writ petition asking the Court to cancel a cheque bounce case filed against him. However, the petition had some technical errors, and the Court had earlier directed him to correct them within two weeks. Azad failed to do so.

When the case came up again on July 8, Azad appeared on video call without a lawyer. He refused to argue the matter and asked the judge to step away from the case. His reason? The same judge had earlier imposed costs (a penalty) on him in a different case.

Justice Kunhikrishnan did not accept this request and offered an important clarification.

"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..."

In simple terms, this means that cases are assigned to judges based on a roster system, which is decided by the Chief Justice. It's not up to the parties involved in the case to decide which judge should hear them.

The judge also explained that just because he had imposed costs in a previous case doesn’t mean he would be unfair in future cases. Each case is judged based on its own facts and merits.

"The imposition of cost in one case will never lead to the imposition of cost in all the cases filed by the petitioner..."

Interestingly, even though the judge said the petitioner’s behavior was contemptuous (disrespectful towards the court), no action was taken—mainly because Azad appeared without a lawyer and may not have understood proper court conduct. However, the judge warned that such behavior, if repeated, could lead to legal action.

This judgment is an important reminder that courts follow systems and rules for assigning cases. Allowing people to choose their judges would go against the idea of a fair and impartial justice system.

Final Thoughts:

Courtroom discipline and respect for judicial processes are key parts of a functioning legal system. The Kerala High Court's clear stance ensures that fairness remains central—and that personal preferences do not interfere with the course of justice.