Pranjal Sharma | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 8th July 2020
Reepak Kansal v. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India & Ors.
1. The current writ petition under Article 32, arises out of the petitioner (advocate, Supreme Court) against various officers of the Registry of the Supreme Court and the Union of India, for issuing an Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms etc.
2. The petitioner contends that equal treatment has not been given to the ordinary lawyers/ litigants and some law firms or Advocates are favoured.
3. The petitioner puts forward three instances, the first being, Writ Petition filed by him on 16.4.2020 in which three defects were pointed out by the registry being (a) Court fee of Rs. 530 was not paid, (b) Documents to be placed as per index, and (c) Details given in index were incomplete and annexures were not filed, matter to be rechecked.
4. The second instance given by the petitioner is that a Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 12.5.2020, which has not been listed by the Registry till today because a copy of the writ petition was missing.
5. The third instance given is about the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2020. The Dealing Assistant pointed out defects on 26.5.2020. The defects were pointed out by the Dealing Assistant after six days of filing.
6. The petitioner averred that on 23.4.2020, Writ Petition named Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. UOI was filed at 8.07 p.m. without an annexure and the Registry did not point out any defects, and a special supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. The plaintiff also stated that the category of the supplementary list was not specified in the notification, he affirmed that no procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearing during the lockdown.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Court stated that the current petition was initially listed for 18.6.2020 and on 17.6.2020 the petitioner circulated a letter stating that he was under the impression that Registry would call him to interact with the Registrar in person as per the procedure and that the petitioner was out of Delhi due to a pre-arrangement and as he did not carry a soft or hard copy of the writ petition to argue the matter he prayed for a time of six weeks to file annexure/ evidence etc., in order to prove his submissions before this Court and the case was listed for hearing on 19.6.2020. he was heard in person and repeated the facts about the discrimination being meted out by the Registry of not listing the cases promptly.
The court presented that Writ Petition filed on 17.4.2020 during the nationwide lockdown, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for the ‘One Nation One Ration Card Scheme’ was heard and decided on 27.4.2020 and The Union of India was directed to examine whether it was feasible for it to implement the Scheme at this stage or not and take appropriate decision in this regard, keeping in view of the current circumstances the writ petition was disposed of. In the current instance that court also noted that the petition was filed on the 17.4.2020, 18th and 19th April 2020 were the holidays and during the nationwide lockdown, the court functioning was the minimal staff. The case was mentioned in the cause list on 26.4.2020 to be listed on 27.4.2020. Thus, it could not be said that there was a delay.
In the matter Concerning the second instance i.e., Writ Petition filed on 9.5.2020, the court seated that the Registry has noted several defects on 14.5.2020. The petition is still lying with defects.
The court in the third instance i.e., Writ Petition filed on 20.5.2020 observed that it was a defective petition and defects were pointed out by the Registry on 26.5.2020 that the whole index was blank, the Petition, Affidavit, Vakalatnama, Memo of Appearance, and Application were all unsigned with a deficit court fee, etc. The petitioner removed the defects but later on other defects were caused, defects recurred, and the petition was re-filed on 3.6.2020 and the matter was processed and listed on 9.6.2020 and was heard and dismissed on 12.6.2020. The court observed that the petitioner himself was responsible for 12-13 days of delay in removing the defects.
The court said that “As to the case of Arnab Goswami, it was listed urgently in view of the order of a competent authority. It pertained to liberty and freedom of media.”
The court also observed that in the view on ongoing pandemic the Registry of the Court is working with less strength, and because of the facts described above and circumstances, it was observed that there was no justification for the petitioner to allege discrimination or favour any particular individual. The defects in all three cases were of the petitioner.
The court also stated that “We expect members of the noble fraternity to respect themselves first. They are an intellectual class of the society. What may be proper for others may still be improper for them, the expectations from them is to exemplary to the entire society, then only the dignity of a noble profession and judicial system can be protected. The Registry is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity.”
The Hon’ble bench observed that “We also expect from the Registry to work efficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the lawyers also to remove the defects effectively and not to unnecessarily cast aspersions on the system.”
The court dismissed the petition and imposed a fine of Rs.100 on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibility towards a noble profession and that he should not have preferred such a petition.
Leave a Reply