Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

All Is Not Well In The Supreme Court And Its Registry

Posted in: Supreme Court
Sat, Jan 8, 22, 11:06, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5516
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers

It is entirely unquestionable that Supreme Court is the highest court of the land in India as is in the case of any other country. No doubt, the Supreme Court also called Apex Court is termed by many as final but yet not infallible. It is also true that the Apex Court has usually always been widely applauded for its learned, laudable, landmark and creditworthy judgments but since last couple of years we do keep hearing repeatedly that deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers which is definitely a matter of grave concern as it directly dents the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the people!

Needless to say, one felt totally gobsmacked on going through the extremely commendable, learned and enlightening editorial titled: Justice delayed is justice denied : All is not well in the Supreme Court written by none other than one of the most distinguished, eminent and senior lawyer and former President of Supreme Court Bar Association – Dushyant Dave who has been practicing since last many decades with utmost brilliance in the top court in the well known web portal Bar and Bench dated January 6, 2022 in which he lays bare how the functioning of the Registry of the Supreme Court needs closer supervision and control and needs to be seriously reformed fundamentally. Even the worst critics of Dushyant Dave will agree that whatever he has written in this enlightening editorial carries a lot of weightage and has to be taken most seriously as it directly concerns the manner in which the Apex Court and its Registry functions! If the concerns that he has voiced are not addressed even now then we have to blame ourselves for the delay in justice delivery that we see so very often also even in the top court itself!

At the very outset, Dushyant Dave points out in his enlightening editorial that:
At the function organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to bid farewell to Justice Subhash Reddy on his demitting office, the Judge made some poignant and sobering remarks about pendency of cases. He said:
Deterioration of human values had its impact in rising cases and crimes. All courts have a huge backlog of pending cases, every year this backlog swells in size due to an increase in cases.

He further also very rightly added, "...Time consuming procedures, civil or criminal, prescribed in the 19th century for the trial of cases in the pre-industrialised society, need to be modernised to suit the needs of modern society....Unless we come up with comprehensive planning and give timelines for disposal of cases, the present system may not work for the present and future needs. This is high time for all stakeholders in the system to think seriously to bring drastic reforms keeping in mind the present day needs of the society."

"...Unless we come up with comprehensive planning giving timelines for disposal of cases, the present system may not work for present and future needs. It's high time for all stakeholders to think seriously to bring drastic reforms keeping in mind the present day needs of the society." His warning applies to all courts, including the Supreme Court. All is not well in the Supreme Court. The Court is clearly showing that justice delayed is justice denied. This despite the fact that the Court itself has held in a number of cases that speedy justice is part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

It must be underscored that the Apex Court too must seriously ponder over what Justice Subhash Reddy who is himself a Supreme Court Judge and so also a senior and eminent lawyer of the Supreme Court Dushyant Dave says on this! It cannot be glossed over under any circumstances! It merits no reiteration that if Supreme Court even now acts in time, it can still make a world of difference in its own functioning as also the functioning of the Apex Court Registry which is incumbent also to fast track the manner in which justice is imparted in the top court itself!

Preferential listing of cases
Abhinand Lagisetti who is a second year law student at the NALSAR University of Law and is an editor and contributor to the Nyaya blog which is a forum for courtroom lawyering most meticulously and most elegantly mentions in his enlightening editorial titled The Supreme Court Registry: A Puppet Of The Powerful dated July 9, 2020 that:
Unlike the selective allocation of cases, the responsibility for the alleged preferential listing of cases lies solely with Registry. As mentioned earlier, as per Order 3 Rule 7 of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, the Registry is mandated to publish a 'terminal list' of all cases ready to be heard in that particular term and it is from this list that the schedule for each week is published. However, it has been contended that the Registry tends to favour certain high profile cases involving powerful people and expedites their date of hearing at the cost of other cases that are pending. In a recent interview, Retd J Deepak Gupta stated from his personal experience that cases involving 'big money' and 'fancy law firms' seemed to get priority in the listing. He further stated that such high-profile cases are listed exactly in four weeks whilst cases involving low profile parties were not listed for six months despite the court's orders to list their cases in four weeks."

To say the least, if this is not a complete mockery of justice, impartiality and equality then what else is? How can all this happen right under the very nose of the Apex Court itself? Why has the Apex Court allowed all this nonsense to happen with impunity? This is just not done!

It cannot be dismissed lightly that none other than Justice (Retd) Deepak Gupta of the Supreme Court with an impeccable track record is himself on record as mentioned in The Hindu newspaper dated May 6, 2020 to state that the laws and legal system are geared in favour of the rich and powerful. He minced just no words to say that:
It was the poorest of the poor who suffered the most during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the underprivileged who needed the attention of the Supreme Court now more than ever. A humane and compassionate judiciary was the need of the hour, he said. Judges could no longer afford to live in ivory towers."

In his farewell speech, Justice Deepak Gupta had candidly said that the system usually went into a tizzy if a rich person was put behind bars. Applications for his bail and expediting his trial were filed repeatedly in the superior courts. His case was heard at the cost of delaying the case of the poor litigant. The poor too had a right to life and dignity. The judiciary needed to hear and help them." Who can deny or dispute this? Just no one!

Furthermore, Justice Deepak Gupta then also hastened to add that:
This Court has a duty to ensure that every citizen of this country lives a life of dignity and is not deprived of the right to life... In times of a crisis such as the one we are living in, the courts must protect the poor and the underprivileged, because it is they who are hit the hardest in trying times. When the court does its duty and acts in favour of the citizens, sometimes there will be friction, but a little friction is a healthy sign that courts are functioning properly." He reminded his fellow judges that there was "no alternative to a totally independent judiciary" in a country which followed the rule of law. He also very rightly underscored that:
The integrity of the judicial institution could not be put at stake under any circumstances. The Constitution is our Bible, Quran, Gita, Guru Granth Sahib..."

It cannot be glossed over that Dushyant Dave then also underscores in the same editorial mentioned hereinabove that:
Judges across the country, from the subordinate courts to the highest court, work extremely hard and in most trying circumstances. The pressure of work on them is immense. They deserve the nation's unbounded gratitude and affection. Yet, a debate must take place on this sensitive and critical subject. On April 1, 2020, the total number of cases pending in the Supreme Court was 61,142. Out of these, 41,286 were admission matters while 19,856 were regular hearing matters This figure jumped to 67,279 as on April 4, 2021, 48,415 admission matters and 18,864 regular hearing matters pending. The trend continued to become grim, because by December 6, 2021, the total number of pending cases rose to 69,855 of which 51,503 were admission matters and 18,352 were regular hearing matters.

Clearly, the Supreme Court has not been able to handle its case load efficiently during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is further aggravated by the fact that between April 4, 2021 and December 6, 2021, the number of complete admission matters (miscellaneous) virtually remained stagnant, increasing from 35,615 to 37,077, while the ready regular hearing matters figures reduced slightly from 18,793 to 18,285. In addition, 50 main matters and 372 connected matters are yet to be heard by Constitution Benches of 5, 7 and 9 judges.

Some of the most crucial matters having far-reaching implications not just to the nation, but also to its citizens and certain sections of citizens, like the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370, the challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act, the challenge to demonetization, validity of anti-conversion laws, challenges to the Electoral Bond scheme, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) case, amongst others, remain virtually ignored. There can be no reason whatsoever why such important matters pending for hearing, including those before Constitution Benches, are not being heard. I have personally known a number of matters where despite specific directions by different benches for listing matters on specific dates, the same have not been listed by the Registry for reasons quite unfathomable to those who are familiar with the Court and its functioning.

Many lawyers during discussions in the corridors of the Court have been bitterly complaining about their important matters not being listed for no reason. The functioning of the Registry of the Court needs closer supervision and control and needs to be seriously reformed fundamentally. Almost all the judges of the Supreme Court today are from various High Courts. The others who are directly elevated are fully familiar with the functioning of the High Courts. In almost every High Court, as my experience goes, fresh matters upon being filed and cleared with the Registry, are listed for hearing in a day or two and matters with short dates post-notice, and would be heard and disposed off in a few months, unless admitted.

The experience in the Supreme Court is quite the contrary, because even the most urgent matters are not being listed for weeks and months despite being "complete," for no reason whatsoever. Repeated mentioning before the Chief Justice of India have failed to elicit any relief to litigants who need speedy justice. So, why is it that the Registry officials who also have had exposure to High Courts are unable to streamline the procedure in the Supreme Court? The pandemic prompted the Court to think and act out of box. Sadly, it failed to live up to expectations, especially during the tenure of former Chief Justice of India SA Bobde. The virtual platform used by the Supreme Court during most of the pandemic was fairly limited, if not outdated.

It is only a few months ago that a different virtual system was installed. Even the present system poses serious problems. In particular, arguing lawyers are at the mercy of the court master who can switch their arguments on and off at their own sweet will. This has left arguing Lawyers bewildered, particularly at the end of the hearing, when they are not even able to make simple pleas. The system utilized by the High Courts appears to be much better and seems to have worked satisfactorily for over two years."

It is beyond the cavil of any debate that prompt and effective changes must be made in which the Supreme Court Registry functions. Its unfettered discretionary powers must be curtailed on listing of cases before the top court. It merits no reiteration that Registry too must be made more accountable and if it lists cases out of turn then those who do so without any strong and compelling reason must be held liable and punished most severely!

Also, Supreme Court must have regional Benches with Constitution Bench at Delhi and four Cassation Bench in four regions at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai as was recommended by the 229th report of the Law Commission of India that was submitted on August 5, 2009. Thirteen years later we still see no action! So now is the time to act and not just ponder!

It is no ordinary matter that none other than the Attorney General of India - KK Venugopal himself proposed four benches of Court of Appeal – north, south, west and east – having 15 Judges each having same calibre as Judges of the Supreme Court! It has to be acknowledged that all is not well in the Supreme Court and in the functioning of its Registry and same holds for our penal laws also which are of colonial era and it is good to learn that Centre is contemplating on making serious changes in our penal laws to meet the present era!

The same must be done urgently with the functioning of the Supreme Court Registry also as the functioning of the Supreme Court itself hinges on it and how it lists cases so that the poor, needy and the deprived gain the most from our legal system and not suffer most from it as we see much to our consternation most unfortunately!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Top