It is a matter of serious concern that anybody should attribute motive to judges on account of mere delay in pronouncing orders. The delay is not due to design. Heavy work schedule is one of the reasons, Justice K Sampath has observed.

The court cannot be a party or device or instrumentality by anyone for some ulterior motive. The court cannot allow the process to be abused nor can a public interest litigation be used to satisfy individual whims, however pious they are projected to be.

The judge was dismissing as not maintainable, a public interest writ petition praying for a direction to Chief Justice M S Liberhan and the High Court Registrar to transfer the batch of cases filed by J Jayalalitha challenging the constitutional validity of creation of special courts, to another bench not consisting of Liberhan. (The special courts were constituted to try the corruption chargesagainst Jayalalitha, her erstwhile Cabinet colleagues, IAS officers and others).

The judge observed that it is surprising that the petitioner had demanded that the judges spell out reasons for the alleged delay in delivering the order reserved on February 4, 1998, by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Liberhan and Justice D Raju (now CJ of Himachal Pradesh High Court). Though there might be umpteen reasons, the judge is under no obligation to give reasons for delay in delivering judgments.

There may be provisions under the Civil Procedure Code requiring subordinate judges to give their decisions within a stated period. But these provisions do not apply to the High Court.

There are a lot of cases with the judges and they cannot make up their mind immediately. Some take their own time, in some cases the judges are required to do a lot of research work themselves. Having regard to the nature of the question involved, no practising lawyer should underrate the pressure of work of judges.

Rejectingpetitioner's contention that judges are constitutional functionaries and owe a duty to the people to pronounce orders within a reasonable time, the judge said the judges need not be told of their obligations.

The judge pointed out that in several matters, judgments have not been delivered by the Supreme Court and High Courts for months and years. Though it creates grave inconvenience for the parties, the solution to this phenomenon lies elsewhere. It is indeed a grave evil and a method has to be evolved by which judgments are delivered with reasonable speed.

The judge observed that equally it cannot be said that a particular case cannot be heard by a particular bench or a particular judge. Irresponsible allegations have been made against the chief justice in the PIL. This has been done only because from the nature of office he holds, he cannot reply.

The judge said the petitioner, S Gopal Raju, could not point out any order or rule which enjoins posting of a case only to a Division Bench. It is highlydoubtful whether there are bonafides in the action initiated by the petitioner.

The motive of the petitioner does not appear to be laudable as made out to be. On the contrary, this appears only to be an attempt to stall and delay the proceedings from coming to a head.

With regard to allocation or allotment of work and constitution of Benches, the chief justice is the ultimate authority. The matter at issue essentially relates to formation of benches, the same is left to the chief justice.

The petitioner has not made out any case for the relief he has prayed for. It must be remembered that it is the duty of legal fraternity that the image of the judiciary is not tarnished and its respectability eroded.

Rules have been framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 of the Constitution. These rules empower the chief justice to constitute Benches but still the decision is a collective one and not the chief justice's alone.

The judge said what the chief justice does under Article 225cannot be a subject matter of a writ.

Petitioner contended that the retention of cases by the chief justice was to prevent his transfer to other High Courts.

The judge said he failed to see how the retention of cases would prevent a transfer, if really it is to be made. No judge is asked in advance whether he had finished delivering judgments in all the cases which he had heard.

The motive alleging that the chief justice is irresponsible is utterly malafide in nature, the judge said.