Central Idea

The CJI, DY Chandrachud expressed his disapproval of forum shopping, a practice in which litigants or lawyers deliberately choose a specific judge or court that they believe will provide a more favorable judgment.

Understanding Forum Shopping

Forum shopping refers to the intentional selection of a court or judge by litigants or lawyers with the expectation of obtaining a favourable outcome.
It involves strategically moving a case to a particular jurisdiction based on a perception of better judgment.
Lawyers consider the appropriate forum as part of their litigation strategy, sometimes opting for higher courts like the Supreme Court to gain wider attention for their case.
However, deliberately avoiding a specific judge or manipulating the process to obtain favourable treatment is generally discouraged.

The practice of forum shopping raises several concerns, including:

Injustice to the Other Party: Forum shopping can result in unfair treatment and injustice to the opposing party, as it undermines the principle of impartiality and equal access to justice.
Overburdening Certain Courts: Concentrating cases before specific judges or courts can overload their workload, causing delays and hindering the judicial process.
Interference with Judicial Process: Forum shopping interferes with the smooth functioning of the judicial system, as cases may be filed and refiled in multiple jurisdictions, leading to unnecessary duplication of efforts.

Countries following the common law tradition, including the US and UK, have criticized forum shopping and adopted measures to discourage or prohibit the practice.
One such measure is the principle of “forum non-conveniens,” which grants courts discretionary powers to refuse jurisdiction when another court or forum would be more appropriate to hear the case.
This allows the court to dismiss a case in the interest of justice and fairness, redirecting it to the appropriate venue.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling in ‘Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash (1988),’ emphasized that a litigant should not be allowed to choose the forum and called for stern action against any attempt at forum shopping.

In a 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated its condemnation of forum shopping, citing its previous 2017 ruling in ‘Union of India & Ors. vs. Cipla Ltd.’
The court established a “functional test” to determine whether forum shopping is occurring.
The test considers the functional similarity between different courts or whether a litigant is employing subterfuge to manipulate the system.

To address the issue of forum shopping, it is essential to:

Create Awareness: Raise awareness among litigants, lawyers, and the general public about the negative consequences of forum shopping and the importance of upholding judicial integrity and fairness.
Strengthen Ethical Standards: Emphasize the ethical obligations of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and discourage forum shopping practices.
Streamline Jurisdictional Rules: Develop clear guidelines and rules regarding jurisdictional issues to prevent unnecessary disputes and ensure cases are heard by the appropriate courts.
Judicial Training and Monitoring: Provide training and guidance to judges on identifying and addressing instances of forum shopping, while also monitoring court proceedings to detect any potential manipulation.

By implementing these measures, the legal system can discourage forum shopping, uphold the principles of justice and fairness, and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.