SC Criticizes Its Registry For Failure To List Cases Despite Judicial Orders

The Supreme Court has recently criticized its registry for failing to list cases as directed by judicial orders, citing procedural non-compliance by litigants as an unacceptable reason.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that registry officials can’t defy court directives.

“When there is an order of the Court directing the listing of cases assigned to a specific bench, the registry cannot refuse to comply due to non-compliance with procedural aspects,” the bench stated in its December 20 order.

The issue arose in a case involving six pleas related to the Hashimpura massacre. Despite the Court’s directions, the registry declined to list the cases, arguing that the petitioner’s counsel failed to provide proof of serving plea copies to caveators. This action was based on Rule 2 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which requires petitioners to notify caveators with a copy of the plea.

However, the Court clarified that the 2013 Rules do not bar listing cases solely due to procedural lapses, especially when urgency or explicit court orders are involved. “There may be cases of extreme urgency. In such cases, the registry cannot rely on Rule 2 of Order XV and refuse to list the case,” the Court noted.

The bench further explained that under Section 148A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), when interim relief is sought, the Court must notify caveators if a caveat has been filed. However, in appeals or Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), caveators are not entitled to be heard regarding the grant of leave or admission of the appeal. Their rights pertain solely to interim relief.

The Court directed that in instances where procedural requirements under Rule 2 are unmet, the registry should still list the case with an office report highlighting the petitioner’s or appellant’s failure to comply.

While no action was taken against registry officials, the bench expressed its hope that such incidents would not recur. It also instructed the registry to list all pending matters of this nature by January 17, 2025.

This decision underscores the Court’s stance on ensuring that judicial directives are upheld and urgent cases are not delayed by procedural technicalities.

Read More: Who Was Sunil Yadav? Notorious Drug Smuggler Shot Dead By A Gangster Related To Lawrence Bishnoi