Lawyers in the Madras High Court have raised concerns over the simultaneous listing of 1,250 petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These petitions seek the quashing of first information reports (FIRs) and are scheduled to be heard before Justice G Jayachandran in a single day. 

On October 3 of this year, Justice Jayachandran assumed responsibility for cases related to Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs) following the notification of a new roster by the High Court Registry. His predecessor, Justice N Anand Venkatesh, who previously handled this portfolio, was transferred to the Madurai bench.

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has expressed the concern that lawyers are apprehensive due to the possibility that a "mass hearing" of their petitions may result in a "miscarriage of justice."

On Wednesday, Justice Jayachandran's courtroom issued three separate lists of cases in the day's causelist. The first list contained approximately 97 matters, including criminal original petitions and writ petitions, which were heard. The second list comprised 23 connected election petitions and related applications. The third list, which was addressed after the lunch break, consisted of 1,250 criminal original petitions concerning the quashing of FIRs filed between 2022 and 2023. Notably, none of these cases were interconnected.

Before the third list was taken up, a large gathering of lawyers had assembled in the courtroom in anticipation of the proceedings.

Justice Jayachandran informed the gathered lawyers that there was no need for them to overcrowd the court hall. He assured that he would be examining each case individually and hearing all parties involved. Additionally, the judge explained that he was undertaking this thorough examination to determine which of the 1,250 cases adhered to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court's judgment in the Neeharika Infrastructure case. In that particular case, the Supreme Court had cautioned High Courts against issuing interim orders indiscriminately to prohibit the police from taking coercive actions. This exercise was likely conducted to ensure that the principles and limitations set by the Supreme Court were followed in these cases.

Justice Jayachandran also mentioned that there were nearly two lakh FIRs pending in various police stations throughout the state. He noted that, in many instances, the progress of investigations had been hindered due to these pending petitions seeking the quashing of FIRs. Even in cases where there is no official stay order from the court, law enforcement officers often cite the existence of these pending FIR quash petitions as a reason to keep the FIRs unresolved for an extended period of time.

He also advised the lawyers representing the 1,250 petitions to voluntarily withdraw their cases if they believed that their petitions did not meet the criteria outlined in the Neeharika judgment. He further cautioned that the court would impose financial penalties or costs on petitions that were deemed to be frivolous or without merit.

Later that evening, the Court issued a notification instructing the Registry to schedule all 1,250 cases together on October 18. This decision caused a great deal of concern and anxiety among the lawyers, who shared their apprehensions through messages on WhatsApp groups. They were worried that their cases might not be heard in a fair and just manner due to the large number of cases being listed simultaneously.

The lawyers expressed the view that there was nothing preventing a judge from assessing whether each of the cases conformed to the criteria established in the Neeharika judgment. However, they suggested that this evaluation could be conducted during the subsequent hearings of each individual case, rather than listing all of them together on a single date. 

A lawyer pointed out that the judge has the authority to evaluate, modify, or affirm the interim orders in each case. There is no inherent problem with this approach. However, there is no compelling need to examine all the cases together at this very moment, as doing so simultaneously may not be necessary. Instead, the assessment of these matters can be conducted individually during their respective hearings.