The Bombay High Court recently criticized an Additional Sessions Judge for inappropriately using the word “handicapped” to express his frustration over a heavy caseload in the case [Godrej Projects Development and another V. Zakir Ramzan Qureshi and others].
In an order dated April 24, the sessions court judge granted a stay on certain trial court proceedings and adjourned the hearing of some applications, stating he was “handicapped” due to having around 99 cases listed for hearing that day.
Justice Prithviraj K Chavan of the High Court acknowledged that most courts are overwhelmed with cases but found the language used by the sessions court judge in the April 24 order unacceptable.
“The tone and tenor of the language is unwarranted and unacceptable. The Judicial Officer should not have expressed his frustration and inability by using the word ‘handicapped’ as well as his non-inclination to grant a stay. It is common knowledge that almost every Court is flooded with cases, which does not mean that in genuine and proper cases such reasons should be given,” stated the High Court’s June 20 order.
In the April 24 order under scrutiny, the sessions court judge noted that there were 99 matters listed for hearing that day. He observed that the case involved 12 applications, which would bring the total number of matters listed before the court to 111 if those applications were counted.
Despite initially expressing reluctance, the judge eventually granted the stay due to the heavy caseload, though it was contested by the opposing counsel. He adjourned the hearing of the applications to June 12 and remarked that he was “handicapped.”
Following a writ petition filed by one of the parties, the High Court on June 20 directed the judge to decide expeditiously on six of the 12 applications that were deferred until June 12. The High Court ordered the sessions court judge to decide on these six applications within four weeks and scheduled the matter for July 22 to ensure compliance with this directive.
Advocate Shaini Punamiya, instructed by Fox Mandal and Associates LLP, appeared for Godrej Projects Development and Godrej Properties, the petitioners before the High Court.
