The Supreme Court has dismissed an advocate’s plea seeking directions to the Madras High Court registry to list 21 pending cases filed on behalf of his clients. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision refusing to grant such relief through a writ petition.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh dismissed the special leave petition filed by advocate L.K. Charles Alexander in L.K. Charles Alexander v. Registrar General, Madras High Court.
Background
Alexander had approached the Madras High Court claiming that 21 cases filed by him for his clients had not been listed despite repeated requests to the registry. He sought a direction requiring the registry to list those matters.
On July 3, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed his writ petition.
The High Court held that the writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the established procedure for listing cases. It observed that lawyers and litigants do not have a vested or fundamental right to have their matters listed ahead of earlier-filed cases outside the prescribed procedure for urgent listing.
The High Court had, however, left open the option of submitting a mention memo before the bench concerned or approaching the Registrar (Judicial) regarding any listing discrepancy.
Challenging the High Court’s order, Alexander approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath questioned the basis for seeking a direction concerning the listing process, pointing out that cause lists are published under the orders of the Chief Justice.
The exchange included the following observation by Justice Nath:
“Have you ever seen what the cause list says at the end? Published under the orders of the Chief Justice. You want a direction to the Chief Justice. Dismissed.”
Alexander clarified that his request was directed at the registry rather than the Chief Justice. The bench nevertheless declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the advocate’s plea, leaving the Madras High Court’s July 3 order undisturbed.
The Supreme Court did not record detailed reasons for its dismissal.
