High Court Registry cannot refuse to number petitions on maintainability grounds; must number subject to court decision.

ORDER

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The Writ Petition in SR stage before numbering, is listed before this Court under the caption “for maintainability”.

3. The issue regarding the Registry refusing to number a case, raising a doubt regarding maintainability is no longer res integra. In the case of P.Surendran vs. State , reported in 2019 (9) SCC 154, which arose pursuant to the order of the Registry of this Court in refusing to number a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court Registry could not have exercised the power to decide on maintainability of a case, as it is a judicial function in the realm of the Court and directed the Registry to number the case and post before Court. For easy reference, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder;

“11. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate Bench.”

4. However, even after the decision in P.Surendran case, the Registry continued to raise the issue regarding maintainability in numbering the case. As such pursuant to the grievances raised by the Bar Associations, the same was placed before the Grievance Redressal Committee (constituted as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in District Bar Association Dehradun Vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Others, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 672).

5. The Grievance Redressal Committee considered the issue and resolved that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Surendran referred supra, had held that the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry; the Registry is only bound to scrutinize the orderliness of the case papers filed by the litigants/lawyers. If the requirements under the Rules are complied with, then the petition is to be numbered. If at all the Registry has any doubt regarding maintainability of the petition, then the Registry has to number the case with an endorsement “numbered subject to maintainability”.

6. The Committee resolved that the Registry, henceforth shall not refuse to number any case on the ground that it is not maintainable under law. In this context, it is not necessary for the Registry to put up a note for maintainability before the Hon’ble Judge dealing with the roster for listing the same under the caption “for maintainability”. The Registry is bound to number all the petitions, if the papers are otherwise in order and list the same before the Court holding the roster, under the caption “for maintainability”.

7. Even pursuant to the aforesaid resolution by the Grievance Redressal Committee, the Registry continued to raise the issue of maintainability in numbering the case and listed the cases in SR stage before the Court, under the caption “for maintainability”.

8. Again, when a similar issue arose, in respect of not numbering the case on the ground of maintainability following an administrative order dated 18.06.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of S.Balakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu [S.L.P.(Crl.)Diary No.33621 of 2025], called for a report from the Registrar General of this Court for not numbering the petition and placing it before the Court for deciding on maintainability. Pursuant to the compliance report filed enclosing the resolution taken by the Grievance