The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that if every advocate is allowed to file such pleas against the registry, the court would be flooded with litigation, paralysing the administration of justice.

“If every advocate whose case is delayed is permitted to file a writ petition against the Registry, the court would be flooded with internal litigation, effectively paralyzing the administration of justice. Mandamus is a discretionary remedy reserved for enforcing a clear statutory right or correcting a palpable breach of legal duty. No such breach exists here,” the court said.

The court added that though it was sympathetic to the professional anxieties of the lawyer who was answerable to the client, a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be used as an administrative tool to bypass the established listing procedure.

“While this court holds a sympathetic regard for the professional anxieties of a young member of the Bar who feels answerable to his litigants, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be utilized as an administrative tool to bypass the High Court's established listing procedures,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by a lawyer seeking a direction to the Registry of the High Court (both at the Principal seat and the Madurai bench) to list his matters, pending adjudication at various stages. The petitioner had argued that even after several letters of request, the Registry was not listing his cases, and this administrative lapse of the Registry had caused him significant mental distress.

The court, however, observed that a litigant or a counsel did not have a fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of other litigations, which were instituted much earlier.

The court also added that the Registry had a herculean task of listing the cases. The court noted that listing was not a mechanical exercise of data entry but the registry had to process thousands of fresh filings along with pending matters. Thus, the court noted that to maintain equity among litigants, the cases must be listed in a chronological or category-wise queue.

The court also added that the petitioner is not without a remedy. The court said that if there was extreme urgency, the petitioner could submit a formal praecipe (mention memo) before the concerned judge, who would exercise inherent judicial discretion to determine whether the matter warrants expedited listing.

Alternatively, the court noted that the petitioner could submit a comprehensive representation to the Registrar (Judicial) who has the administrative mandate to rectify the listing discrepancies.

Thus, noting that the writ petition was not maintainable, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. L. K. Charles Alexander (Appearing in person)

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Kempraj

Case Title: LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

Case No: WP No.24309 of 2026