On Tuesday(16th July),The Supreme Court rebuked its registry for directing a case involving a service dispute and individuals with criminal histories to the Lok Adalat. The case involved an appeal challenging the rejection of a constable position due to nondisclosure of criminal prosecution, upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in August 2019.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday(16th July), expressed strong disapproval towards its registry for allegedly forwarding a case involving a service dispute and parties with criminal backgrounds to the Lok Adalat for settlement.
The case in question revolved around an appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court‘s August 2019 decision. The High Court had upheld the rejection of the appellant’s candidature for the position of constable, citing that the appellant had hidden the fact of his criminal prosecution in the verification form.
Initially, the appellant had been placed on the list of selected candidates. However, his name was subsequently removed when it was discovered that he had concealed his criminal antecedents.
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel informed the bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, that the case had been referred to the Lok Adalat. He further mentioned that he had received a notice stating that the matter was scheduled for listing on July 19.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams SC Registry for Ignoring Repeated Directions on Case File Management
Expressing surprise at this referral, Justice Dhulia questioned-
“Why was a service matter sent to Lok Adalat? Did you disclose your criminal history?”
In response, the appellant’s advocate explained that he had circulated a letter to the Supreme Court registry, which then referred the matter to the Lok Adalat.
A visibly displeased Justice Amanullah remarked-
“How could the Supreme Court registry do this? It’s absolute chaos. We need to contact the registry about this.”
This statement highlighted the gravity of the situation and the perceived procedural irregularity.
Instead of issuing an official order, Justice Dhulia was observed directing the bench secretary to arrange a meeting with senior registry officials in his chamber.
“Request the senior registry officials to join me in my chamber.”
-Justice Dhulia remarked.
ALSO READ: Prashant Bhushan Queries SC Registry on Removal of Judge Appointment Petitions
The incident underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring proper judicial procedures and its vigilance in handling cases involving individuals with criminal backgrounds. The referral of such cases to the Lok Adalat, a body primarily designed for amicable settlement of disputes, especially those involving service matters and criminal antecedents, raises significant concerns about judicial process integrity and administrative oversight within the court’s registry.
