Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave expressed to the Court today that “if the government is influencing the decision not to list the case, as indicated by the Assistant Registrar who claimed to have orders against listing, it would amount to contempt.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a recent development that has raised questions about the integrity of the Supreme Court’s registry, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave brought to light a concerning issue before a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar. Representing Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Dave expressed alarm over the registry’s failure to list a case against Adani Power, describing the situation as “very disturbing.”
Dave urged the Court to issue a judicial order, highlighting that such delays are uncommon in High Courts. He revealed that an Assistant Registrar claimed to have received instructions not to list the case, stating-
“Assistant Registrar said he has orders not to list. If the government is behind this, then it is contempt. Kindly list today itself,”
-as per Dave’s request.
Justice Bose, responding to the issue raised in the morning session, said-
“At whose behest? We will find out. You come at 2.”
Dave, in a determined response, insisted-
“Please call them (registry officials). I will wait here. Other benches have issued notice. I will wait here… Court proposes and Registry disposes. Please summon the official right now.”
The bench assured Dave, saying-
“We will take care.”
ALSO READ: Kerala Court Convicts 15 Persons in BJP Leader Ranjith Srinivasan Murder Case
The petitioner emphasized the significance of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), stating,
“This PIL concerns 20 crore people, has to be heard. It was supposed to be listed within two weeks; it has been eight. Why is this happening?”
The case in question involves allegations by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited that an application by Adani Power was improperly listed before the Supreme Court despite a final judgment in the main case. In January of the previous year, the Rajasthan discom addressed a letter to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court registry, raising concerns about the integrity of the registry’s process. The letter pointed out that the case was listed for orders on January 6, 2023, despite being finally disposed of on August 31, 2020.
In the 2020 judgment, the apex court ruled that Adani Power was not entitled to the payment of Late Payment Surcharge (LPS). Following this, the Rajasthan electricity distributor paid the entire amount due, which was accepted by Adani. The letter from the discom argued that the latest application was an attempt to review the 2020 judgment after more than two years, without any application for condonation of delay. While the DISCOM had filed a review application, which was dismissed in March 2021, Adani did not file any review petition.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Upholds Press Freedom | Grants Anticipatory Bail to Journalist
In response to these allegations, the Supreme Court had sought a report from the registry within ten days last year, regarding the improper listing of an application by Adani Power despite a final judgment in the case. This development in the Supreme Court has brought to the forefront issues of procedural integrity and transparency within the judiciary’s administrative processes.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
