‘Conductor or Principal Secretary, all are equal before us’:SC tells ex-district judge being a judge confers no priority; rejects plea for early hearing

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a former district judge’s plea for an early hearing, saying that no one can be given priority on the basis of their position. The Constitution gives every person an equal right of access to justice. Former judge Rakesh Kumar Nain had sought an early hearing of his writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court. The petition was filed challenging his dismissal from service. A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana gave him the liberty to seek an early hearing before the High Court itself. Dismissed from service over corruption allegations Rakesh Kumar Nain was a special judge hearing cases related to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Full Court of the Allahabad High Court found him guilty of judicial misconduct and corruption. Following this, Nain was dismissed from service with immediate effect. He filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging his dismissal. The petition is still pending. Distressed by the delay in the hearing, Nain filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. Initially, the bench refused to hear his petition. It also granted him liberty to mention his pending application before the High Court for an early hearing. Justice Bagchi said that unless there were extremely serious allegations regarding the delay, the petitioner could not be shown “undue sympathy” merely because he was a former judicial officer. He said, “We do not encourage such petitions. Showing undue sympathy when a matter has not been heard for a long time may violate the equal rights of those who are waiting for their cases to be heard in the High Court and have no lawyer to represent them.” The court said the petitioner was granted liberty to mention his application before the Allahabad High Court for an early hearing. Justice Bagchi further said that the current bench would make every effort to prevent “opportunistic intervention”. The petitioner’s lawyer said that this was not a case filed by an ordinary petitioner. According to the lawyer, the petition had been filed by a former judicial officer. Justice Bagchi responded sharply, saying that this argument was contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution. He said, “Every citizen has the right to access justice, regardless of their position or status. Both a bus conductor and a state principal secretary have an equal right to access justice for legal redress.” Justice Bagchi said that, in this sphere of constitutional equality, the court would not intervene differently for anyone on an individual basis. He said the court would intervene in an application seeking an early hearing only when it found an extremely serious violation by the High Court that was improper or dishonest.