CJI Surya Kant has promised strict reforms in the Supreme Court Registry after a petition already dismissed by a three-judge Bench was listed again before another Bench. Calling for accountability, the CJI said Registry officials who “think they are permanent” will face administrative scrutiny.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Thursday assured that strict administrative reforms would be introduced in the Supreme Court Registry after it came to light that a petition which had already been dismissed by a three-judge Bench was again listed before another Bench of the top court.
Expressing serious concern over the functioning of the Registry, the CJI said that he would conduct a deeper administrative inquiry and question Registry officials who “think they are permanent”.
The issue arose when a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The challenge was based on the argument of repugnancy, claiming that certain provisions of the State law were inconsistent with Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
During the hearing, it was brought to the Court’s notice that a similar petition filed by Siraj Ahmad Khan challenging provisions of the same 1986 Act is already pending before a Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
In that background, another petitioner, Irfan Solanki, requested that his plea raising similar grounds be tagged along with the matter pending before the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench.
However, the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Court that an almost identical constitutional challenge had earlier been filed in Md. Anas Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh. That case had been heard by a three-judge Bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Datta.
By an order dated December 12, 2022, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and dismissed it, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
The CJI-led Bench expressed strong displeasure that despite the earlier dismissal by a three-judge Bench, a similar matter was again listed before the Chief Justice’s court. The development raised serious concerns about the internal scrutiny and listing procedures followed by the Supreme Court Registry. Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that such lapses would not be ignored and that accountability would be fixed.
During the arguments, Justice Bagchi raised important constitutional questions regarding the plea of repugnancy. He asked whether the argument that the State law becomes invalid due to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita could logically stand, especially when other special State laws on organised crime continue to operate. Justice Bagchi observed:
“If this argument is taken to a logical conclusion, that due to Section 111 of BNSS… the organised crime section in state law is vitiated due to repugnancy. What about MCOCA and all other such laws. What about the General Clauses Act?.. Can a general law on organised crime.. lead to repugnancy of a state special law, especially when Section 26 of the general clauses act…”
The Bench also examined whether the provisions of the General Clauses Act would have an impact on the repugnancy argument. The Court indicated that the issue involves complex constitutional principles concerning legislative competence and conflict between Central and State laws.
When Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for the petitioner, sought permission to withdraw the plea, Chief Justice Surya Kant declined to immediately allow the withdrawal. He insisted that the matter should remain on board so that it could be taken to a logical end and the procedural irregularity regarding listing could be properly examined.
The incident has once again highlighted concerns over case listing practices in the Supreme Court Registry. With the CJI announcing an administrative probe and promising reforms, the matter is likely to lead to tighter scrutiny of how petitions are processed and listed before different Benches of the apex court.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Registry Reforms
