Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 441
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
REEPAK KANSAL – PETITIONER
VERSUS
SECRETARYGENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.541 OF 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2020
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s):Tushar Mehta, Piyush Beriwal, Kanu Aggarwal, Arvind Kr. Sharma, B.V. Balram Das, Piyush Beriwal, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is to be remembered by worthy Lawyers that they are part of the judicial system; they are officers of Court and are a class apart in society.
(2) Registry is part and parcel of system and system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Frivolous Writ Petition – Alleged discrimination in cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. – Considering ongoing pandemic caused by COVID19, Registry of this Court is working with less strength – There was no justification for petitioner to allege discrimination vis-à-vis to him and to favour any particular individual – Defects were there in all three cases filed by petitioner – As to case of Arnab Goswami, it was listed urgently in view of order of competent authority – It pertained to liberty and freedom of media – Conduct indicates that petitioner was careless and not serious while he made allegations – He filed writ application without due inquiries and without collecting requisite material – Such conduct was least expected of an officer of this Court – Petitioner ought to have been careful before cast of unnecessary aspersions on Registry and staff of this Court – Petition as filed could not be said to be maintainable – Petitioner has impleaded Secretary General, various Registrars and officers of Registry, SCBA and Union of India in his writ application – In contrast, Writ is filed against this Court itself – He ought to have impleaded Supreme Court of India in Writ application through Secretary General – Omission indicates careless conduct on part of petitioner – Petition was filed in undue haste – Cases are being listed – It could not be said that there was an inordinate delay in listing matters in view of defects – Court functioned during lockdown, cases were scanned and listed by Registry – Staff of this Court is working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic – During such a hard time, it was not expected of petitioner who is an officer of this Court to file such a petition to demoralize Registry of this Court instead of recognizing task undertaken by them even during pandemic and lockdown period – It is to be remembered by worthy Lawyers that they are part of the judicial system; they are officers of Court and are a class apart in society – Registry is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity – Bar is equally respected and responsible part of integral system – Registry is part and parcel of system and system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence – Petition dismissed with costs. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India against various officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/ petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund excess court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without order or direction of the Court with other cases. Prayer has also been made to direct the Secretary General of this Court to take action against the erring officers for their involvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.
Findings of Court:
In general, it has become a widespread practice to blame Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as many petitions are filed with defects, and defects are not cured for years together. A large number of such cases were listed in the recent past before the Court for removal of defects which were pending for years. In such situation, when the pandemic is going on, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry of this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system.
Result : Petition dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against various officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/ petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund the excess court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without order or direction of the Court with other cases. A prayer has also been made to direct the Secretary General of this Court to take action against the erring officers for their involvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.
2. It is averred in the petition that equal treatment has not been given to the ordinary lawyers/ litigants. They favour some law firms or Advocates for reasons best known to them.
3. The petitioner's first instance is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D. No.10951 of 2020 was filed by him on 16.4.2020. The Registry pointed out three defects, i.e. (1) Court Fee of Rs.530 was not paid, (2) Documents to be placed as per index, and (3) Details given in index were incomplete and annexures were not filed, matter to be rechecked. The petitioner had clarified vide email dated 18.4.2020 that he had paid the court fee of Rs.730/ and there was no annexure with the petition. However, the petitioner was forced to pay more court fees to get the matter listed. Despite the letter of urgency, the Registry failed to register and list the writ petition. The petitioner requested the Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association, about not listing the writ petition. On 27.4.2020, the writ petition was listed before the Court.
4. The second instance given by the petitioner is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D.No.11236 of 2020 was filed on 12.5.2020, which has not been listed by the Registry till today. He was informed that there were no defects in the writ petition, but a copy of the writ petition was missing. After that, no update was given by the Registry.
5. The third instance given is about Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2020 (Diary No.11552 of 2020) 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, though the application for urgency was filed in the petition. The following note was made by the Registry:
“MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECHECK AS WHOLE INDEX IS BLANK, PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, VAKALATNAMA, MEMO OF APPEARANCE AND APPLICATION ALL ARE UNSIGNED AND DEFICIT COURT FEE ETC.”
The petitioner clarified that the signed documents were already uploaded. The matter was urgent, and he had uploaded them again along with signed documents on 26.5.2020. Again the defects were pointed out on 29.5.2020 by the Dealing Assistant to the following effect:
“APPLICATION IS NOT PROPER AS HEADING NOT TALLY WITH INDEX AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND PRAYER OF APPLICATION.”
The petitioner cured the defects on 29.5.2020. After that, the Dealing Assistant did not recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the petitioner made a call and requested the Branch Officer concerned to direct the Dealing Assistant to recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the matter was rechecked and numbered as Diary No.11552 of 2020. The case was verified on 6.6.2020 and listed for 6.7.2020 (computergenerated) which would make the case infructuous. The application for urgency was not considered. The petitioner was informed that the case was likely to be listed on 6.7.2020. He sent an email about the urgency. The Registry was not willing to list the Diary No.11552 of 2020 despite the application for urgency. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.
6. It is averred that on 23.4.2020, W.
