Forum shopping is a calling term for the practice where litigants deliberately choose a specific court to hear their case in anticipation of a favorable outcome. This approach is often incorporated into the litigation strategy by litigants and lawyers. Higher courts, such as the Supreme Court (SC), are sometimes targeted with the intention of attracting more attention to a specific case. More so, if an individual appears to manipulate the system or evade a particular judge, it’s perceived as unjust.
Similarly, the term “Bench Hunting” depicts scenarios where petitioners deliberately have their cases heard by a particular judge or bench in order to secure a positive order. There are both advantages and criticisms associated with this approach to litigation.
Merits and Demerits of Forum Shopping
On one hand, forum shopping can allow plaintiffs to seek justice and compensation in a court that may be more sympathetic to their claims or interests. Additionally, this practice can spur competition and innovation among courts and judges, subsequently improving their efficiency and quality of service.
However, on the contrary, forum shopping has often been criticized by judges. This practice can lead to an injustice for the opposing party and create imbalance in workload across different courts. Criticisms include the overburdening of some courts over others and interference with the judicial process.
Moreover, forum shopping can undermine the authority and legitimacy of courts and judges, creating perceptions of bias or favoritism. It can also escalate costs and complicate litigation by causing conflict between laws and multiple proceedings—factors that disrupt the smooth operation of justice.
Mitigating Forum Shopping to Uphold Justice
Court systems in countries like the US and UK discourage or even prohibit forum shopping. In common law countries, which include the U.S., Canada, and Commonwealth nations, the principle of “forum non-conveniens” is adopted to prevent forum shopping. This principle empowers a court to deny its jurisdiction over a case if another court is more suitable for handling it.
In addition to ensuring fair handling of cases, the principle of forum non-conveniens also optimally allocates cases to the appropriate judicial authorities. Consequently, the practice of forum shopping challenges key principles of justice and judicial processes.
Effects of Forum Shopping on Justice and Judicial Process
Forum shopping compromises the principle of natural justice which mandates that every person should receive a fair hearing before an unbiased tribunal. It also violates the principle of comity— the requirement of courts to respect and defer to each other’s decisions on matters of shared interest.
Moreover, forum shopping can disrupt the principle of finality which posits that litigation should conclude at some point and not be extended indefinitely. Thus, this practice has implications on the broader framework of justice and law.
Judiciary’s Perception of Forum Shopping
Historically, the judiciary in India has expressed its disapproval of forum shopping. This stance is evident in several judgements throughout the years, where penalties have been imposed on petitioners for engaging in forum shopping. Examples span across cases from diverse states and involving different wings of the judiciary- including the Supreme Court, High Courts, and more.
These rulings consistently stressed that forum shopping is a “disreputable practice” that should not be sanctioned by law. The express aim has been to discourage litigants from choosing a court for their convenience and indulging in manipulative tactics.
The guiding principle established is that the judiciary should remain committed to fairness, impartiality, and upholding the rule of law. It is therefore incumbent upon all stakeholders to respect these tenets and avoid practices such as forum shopping that undermine the integrity of the judicial system.