The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea by a former judicial officer seeking an expedited hearing of his pending case before the Allahabad High Court, observing that every litigant has an equal right to access justice. A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said granting priority to one person’s case would amount to unfair treatment of other litigants who were also waiting for their matters to be heard. The former judicial officer had approached the top court seeking an early hearing of his challenge against his termination from service. The bench said the petitioner could pursue the matter before the appropriate court but declined to create an exception for his case.

During the hearing, the bench stressed that a litigant’s position, profession or previous public office cannot by itself justify preferential treatment in the judicial process. The judges observed that whether a person is a bus conductor or a senior government official, everyone is entitled to the same access to justice. The court said it could not intervene sympathetically in one matter merely because the petitioner was facing a delay when numerous other litigants were similarly waiting for their cases to be taken up. “Everyone has an equal right to access justice,” the bench observed, emphasising the constitutional principle of equality in the administration of justice.

The petitioner has challenged his termination from judicial service before the Allahabad High Court. According to the proceedings reported on Thursday, the Supreme Court had initially asked him to approach the high court and request an early hearing of his pending petition. His counsel, however, told the bench that the matter had not been taken up because of the heavy caseload before the high court. The petitioner subsequently sought intervention from the Supreme Court for an expedited hearing. The bench considered whether granting such relief would effectively give his petition precedence over other cases already awaiting consideration before the Allahabad High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Says CAPF Contempt Pleas Row Generated ‘Too Much Heat’ Before Hearing

The judges concluded that directing the high court to prioritise the petition would be unfair to other litigants who had no opportunity to seek similar intervention. The Supreme Court observed that an order favouring one litigant could have consequences for people whose cases were also pending and awaiting adjudication. The bench therefore declined to entertain the plea for priority hearing. The court’s decision was not an adjudication on the former judicial officer’s underlying challenge to his termination and did not determine the merits of that dispute. Instead, the issue before the Supreme Court was limited to whether the petitioner should receive an expedited hearing because his case had not been listed or taken up as quickly as he wanted.

The bench further said that it would not create what it described as “individualistic interventions” within the judicial system. The observation reflected the court’s emphasis on constitutional equality in access to courts and the need to consider the interests of litigants collectively when dealing with requests for preferential listing. The Supreme Court indicated that delays arising from the workload of a court cannot automatically justify giving one case priority over others. Its approach was that any request for an early hearing should ordinarily be pursued before the court where the matter is pending, subject to that court’s procedures and assessment of the case.

The Supreme Court ultimately left the former judicial officer free to pursue his case before the appropriate forum. The refusal to grant an expedited hearing does not decide whether his termination from service was valid or whether he is entitled to any relief in that underlying dispute. Those issues remain for consideration before the Allahabad High Court. The Thursday proceedings instead centred on the broader question of priority in judicial hearings, with the Supreme Court making clear that a litigant’s former status as a judicial officer does not place the person above others waiting for their cases to be heard. The ruling reiterates the principle that access to justice is to be available on an equal basis, while individual cases continue to be governed by the respective courts’ listing and hearing procedures.

Also Read: Great Nicobar Project: Congress Alleges U-Turn as Centre Moves Supreme Court