1. Registry accepted a counter affidavit and documents from a proposed respondent who had not yet been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Harmanpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7862 of 2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-05-2024 in CRM-M No.19508/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]
Decided on : 07-02-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Advocate and Mr. Saransh Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate and Mr. Ayush Anand, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Advocate and Mr. Saransh Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate and Mr. Ayush Anand, Advocate
The Court held that the Registry cannot accept counter affidavits or documents from a proposed party unless they are formally impleaded or have filed a caveat, emphasizing strict adherence to Supreme Court Rules over incorrect administrative practices.
Headnote:(A) Supreme Court Rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Procedures regarding registration and submission of documents by parties - The Registry improperly accepted documents and a counter affidavit from a complainant who was not a party to the proceedings, leading to a critique of procedures and practices within the Registry. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Judicial conduct - Improper registration of documents - The Court emphasized adherence to rules, criticizing the acceptance of documents that violate established protocols and the lack of rectification in procedural lapses. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a Special Leave to Appeal regarding accepted documents from a non-party complainant, leading to an inquiry into procedural compliance in the submission process by the Registry.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the Registrar to report on corrective actions regarding the Registry's practices to ensure adherence to Supreme Court Rules.
Issues: The key questions were whether the Registry acted appropriately by accepting documents from a non-party and the need for compliance with Supreme Court procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Registry must strictly follow Supreme Court Rules, and any deviation can lead to procedural chaos, emphasizing the necessity for accountability in administrative processes. The Court mandated a follow-up on rectifications to ensure proper practices are established going forward.
Result: Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Registry justified the acceptance of documents from a non-party as a prevailing practice intended to avoid inconvenience to the Court. (Para 2 )
3. Registry cannot accept filings from non-parties without permission; internal practices cannot supersede Supreme Court Rules or procedural mandates. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. A proposed party cannot file counter affidavits or documents until the Court permits their impleadment as a respondent. (Para 3 )
5. Registrar (Judicial) directed to submit a report on actions taken to rectify Registry lapses and ensure compliance with procedural rules. (Para 6 )
6. Can the Registry accept a counter affidavit from a proposed respondent before impleadment?
No. Unless the court permits the proposed party to be impleaded and allows the filing of a counter affidavit or documents, the Registry cannot accept such filings or make them part of the record. (Para 3 )
7. Does prevailing practice in the Registry justify the acceptance of documents in violation of procedural rules?
No. The court held that justifying procedural lapses by quoting prevailing practices is unacceptable, emphasizing that the Registry must strictly comply with Supreme Court Rules and other rules of procedure. (Para 3 , 5 )
8. What is the court's position on the Registry accepting illegible or non-typewritten documents?
The court observed that the Registry has repeatedly and improperly accepted documents from non-parties as well as documents that are absolutely illegible and not typewritten. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. On 14.11.2024, the Court had passed the following order:-
"1. A counter affidavit has been filed by the complainant/ proposed respondent no.2.
2. It appears that the application (IA No. 161791/2024) seeking impleadment of the said proposed respondent has not been allowed by the Court.
3. Registry is directed to explain as to how, such counter affidavit from the proposed respondent-complainant, who is not a party, could be accepted.
4. Counsel for the respondent-State seeks time to get instructions on the latest status of the investigation.
5. List the matter after two weeks.
6. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing."
2. Pursuant to the said order, the concerned Officers of the Registry have submitted the following explanation: -
"It is further submitted that Mr. Ayush Anand, Advocate for the Applicant had e-filed application seeking for impleadment of complainant i.e. Mr. Amandeep Singh as respondent along with Counter Affidavit.
The said application was registered by Section I-B and forwarded to the section II B and as per practice the documents received from Counsel through Section I B were presented before, the Hon'ble Court with office report dated 13.11.2024. Since there is no any specific rules in this regard and as per practice the same was done with a view that in case the counsel mention regarding the said document before the Hon'ble Court during the proceeding, the same must be available to the Hon'ble Court to avoid any inconvenience to the Hon'ble Court.
Inconvenience caused to the Hon'ble Court is deeply regretted."
3. It may be noted that as per the Office Report dated 13.11.2024 the learned Advocate Mr. Ayush Anand had on 26.07.2024 filed an application registered as I.A. No. 161791/2024, seeking permission to implead the complainant as the respondent No. 2 in the SLP. Along with the said Application, he also filed a counter affidavit along with seven documents/annexures on behalf of the said applicant/complainant. It hardly needs to be stated that unless the applicant was permitted to be impleaded by the Court and unless he was permitted to file counter affidavit or the documents, the concerned Section/Branch of the Registry could not have accepted the said counter affidavit or the documents from the proposed party, and made such counter/documents part of the record. When the applicant was not a party respondent in the SLP, he could not have filed either the counter affidavit or presented any documents along therewith. It is very unfortunate that the concerned Dealing Assistant has tried to justify the lapse quoting the practice prevailing in the Registry, and the concerned Branch Officer and the Assistant Registrar have simply put their signatures on such unacceptable justification.
4. This Court has time and again observed that the concerned Section/Branch of the Registry is accepting the documents/reply/counter from the party, who would not be a party -respondent in the proceedings nor would he have filed any caveat. Many a times, the documents would be accepted, though absolutely illegible and not even type written.
5. This Court has also time and again drawn the attention of the Registry with regard to the non-compliance of the Supreme Court Rules and other Rules of Procedures in respect of the registration of the SLPs by passing Judicial Orders, however there does not appear to be any follow-up exercise undertaken to rectify the lapses and discontinue the wrong practices followed by the Registry dehors the Supreme Court Rules.
6. In view of the above, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to submit the report and apprise the Court on the next date as to whether any follow-up action is taken on the Judicial Orders passed by the Court on the working of the Registry, and if yes, what actions have been taken so far.
7. List on 21.02.2025.
8. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.
