The Kerala High Court has clarified that if a judicial bench hears and decides a matter that is not assigned to it under the court’s official roster, such an order is without jurisdiction and is legally a nullity.
The decision came from a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu. They were dealing with an appeal against a Single Judge's order, which had refused to allow interim relief sought by a company involved in hotel construction. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had frozen the company's bank accounts, alleging that the funds in question were linked to the proceeds of crime.
Read also: Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
The company had approached the court under a writ petition (W.P.), asking for the de-freezing of its accounts. The main legal issue that arose was whether this petition fell under the category of a civil writ petition or a criminal writ petition—a distinction crucial for deciding which bench had jurisdiction under the High Court’s current roster.
“There is a distinction between a Civil Writ Petition and a Criminal Writ Petition... Thus, the enquiry as to whether the writ petition is a Civil Writ Petition or a Criminal Writ Petition is necessary to ascertain whether it falls within the present Roster,” the Division Bench observed.
The High Court highlighted that under its present roster, different categories of writ petitions (civil and criminal) are assigned to different benches. Therefore, any appeal arising from them must also go before the appropriate bench as per the assignment.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. v GRSE Limited Workmen’s Union & Ors (2025), the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that:
“Any order passed in a matter outside the Roster or not specifically assigned would be without jurisdiction and nullity.”
The Supreme Court had held that a bench cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter just because both parties agree to it. Such authority must flow only from the Chief Justice through official roster assignment.
The Kerala High Court also referred to its earlier decision in N. Prakash v Manoj Kumar (2025), where the distinction between civil and criminal writ petitions was underlined.
In the present case, the court directed that the classification of the writ petition—whether civil or criminal—must be decided first by the Single Judge who initially heard the matter.
“If the Single Judge comes to the conclusion that the matter is a Criminal Writ Petition, then the impugned order will become a nullity and the matter will have to be placed as per the Roster,” the Bench noted.
On the other hand, if the Single Judge decides it was indeed a Civil Writ Petition, then the order would remain valid, and the appellants could proceed with their appeal as originally filed.
This ruling reinforces the importance of procedural discipline in court functioning, especially concerning the jurisdiction and authority of judicial benches. It makes clear that judicial orders passed without proper roster allocation, even if well-intentioned, cannot be considered valid in the eyes of the law.
Counsel for the Appellants: Advocates R. Jaikrishna, Akhil Shaji, Anish P., C. S. Arun Shankar, Narayani Harikrishnan
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Krishna T.C., C. K. Karunakaran, Akshara Raju
Case No: WA 556 of 2025
Case Title: Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others
