Equity demands that all litigants who knock on the doors of this court be treated with equal dignity and fairness. Allowing the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly situated litigants by judicial fiat would violate the principle of equal access to justice.

by Sekar Reporter · July 7, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.07.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP No.24309 of 2026
L.K.Charles Alexander
S/o.Lawrence Kannan,
No.27/1 Welcome Colony, 1st Street, Anna Nagar west, Chennai – 600 101.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Additional Registrar General Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Chennai – 625 023.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to list the cases which have not been listed before the court for a long time, forthwith.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander
(Appearing in person)
For Respondent(s):Mr.M.Kempraj
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner, a practising advocate of this court, has approached this court in person, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Registry of the High Court, both at its Principal Seat and its Madurai Bench, to forthwith list a comprehensive catalogue of twenty-one distinct matters currently pending at various stages of adjudication.
2. According to the petitioner, several Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals, Civil Revision Petitions, Criminal Original Petitions and Writ Petitions filed by him on behalf of his clients have failed to find a place in the daily cause-lists despite several letters of request addressed to the Registry. He laments that the administrative lapse of the Registry has caused him significant mental distress.
3. 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.
4. The administrative authority to control the flow of litigation is an essential facet of judicial independence and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Registry to bypass or disrupt the allocation of cases as per roster. An individual litigant or counsel has no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, save through established exceptional protocols.
5. We must also take judicial notice of the Herculean administrative challenges faced by the High Court Registry. The listing of cases is not a mechanical exercise of data entry. The Registry processes thousands of fresh filings every week, alongside matters already pending. To maintain equity among litigants, cases must generally follow a chronological or category-wise queue.
6. 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.
7. The petitioner is not without a remedy, but his choice of forum and format is severely flawed. The procedural framework of this Court offers two robust avenues for addressing delayed listings:
(i) If a matter carries an element of genuine urgency or has drifted into procedural limbo, the standard, time-honored practice is for the counsel to submit a formal praecipe (mention memo) before the learned Judge or Bench holding the respective roster. It is for the Bench concerned, exercising its inherent judicial discretion, to determine whether the matter warrants an expedited listing.
(ii) Alternatively, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the Registrar (Judicial), who is the custodian of the judicial business of the court and possesses the administrative mandate to rectify listing discrepancies, if any.
8. Equity demands that all litigants who knock on the doors of this court be treated with equal dignity and fairness. Allowing the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly situated litigants by judicial fiat would violate the principle of equal access to justice.
9. In the light of the legal position enunciated above, the relief sought cannot be granted within the parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
03.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Additional Registrar General Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Chennai – 625 023. THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
WP No.24309 of 2026