Can't Seek Priority Just Because You Are Judicial Officer : Supreme Court Rejects Early Hearing Plea

The Supreme Court today(October 1) refused to give priority hearing for a former District Judge, reminding that the Constitution treats every person on equal parameters. 

While dismissing a writ petition of the former judicial officer seeking expeditious disposal of his writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court against dismissal from service, the Court stated that the Constitution doesn't allow giving preferential treatment to anyone. 

To briefly state, the present writ petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Nain, who was posted as a Special Judge overseeing cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Nain was dismissed by the full Court of the Allahabad High Court after he was found guilty of judicial misconduct on corruption charges. His services were terminated with immediate effect. Against this, he preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging his dismissal, which remains pending adjudication.

Aggrieved by the delay in disposal, he preferred a writ petition which came before a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. At the outset, the bench refused to entertain his plea and granted him liberty to press the present application for expeditious hearing before the High Court.

Justice Bagchi stated that unless some egregious claims of delay have been made, there can't be "misplaced sympathy" on the petitioner just because he is a former judicial officer. "We loathe petitions of this nature, as any misplaced sympathy due to inordinate delay in disposal may cause breach of similar right to unrepresented litigants standing in queue for adjudication in the said High Court. Given the nature, we give liberty to the petitioner to press this application for expeditious hearing before the said High Court."

Justice Bagchi went ahead and said that as far as the present bench is concerned, the Court will make every effort to stop "opportunistic interventions". 

When the petitioner's counsel tried to make a point that, unlike an ordinary litigant, the present plea is preferred by a former judicial officer, Justice Bagchi strongly reacted to it and called the argument made against the basic principles of the Constitution.

"You are making a submission which is against the basic ideas of the Constitution that every citizen, irrespective of his station in office, you have access to justice. A bus conductor and even a Principal Secretary of the State have equal right of access to justice for legal disposal. Therefore, in this space of constitutional equality, we would not create individualistic interventions. Each and every expeditious application before us, unless we are convinced of any egregious breach by the High Court which is unfair or dishonest...," Justice Bagchi said.