The Supreme Court raised concern over an alleged Registry lapse after an urgent matter filed on June 8 remained unlisted for over ten days. CJI Surya Kant said accountability would be fixed if urgent files were misplaced.
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over allegations that an urgent matter filed more than ten days earlier had still not been listed for hearing due to an alleged lapse on the part of the Court Registry.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana took note of the issue after an advocate informed the Court that an urgent case filed on June 8 had not yet been placed before the appropriate Bench. According to the advocate, the delay occurred because certain documents connected with the matter were allegedly misplaced within the Registry.
The submission prompted an immediate response from the Bench, with the Chief Justice indicating that any administrative lapse affecting the listing of urgent matters would be viewed seriously.
Addressing the concern raised before the Court, CJI Kant observed:
“If our registry is misplacing urgent files, then do you think I will leave it at that? I will have to take it up and see who is to blame,”
The Court made it clear that if the allegations were substantiated, responsibility would be fixed and appropriate action would follow.
In order to ascertain the facts, the Bench directed that a formal complaint be submitted without delay through the concerned Advocate-on-Record. The Chief Justice instructed that the complaint be personally placed before him on the very same day so that the matter could be examined administratively.
CJI Kant stated:
“Please ask the Advocate on Record to submit the complaint to me either in my chamber now or at my residence. But give it today itself. I will take it up,”
The Court’s response reflected its concern that any lapse in handling urgent filings could directly affect litigants seeking timely judicial intervention.
The latest observations come against the backdrop of several recent instances in which the Supreme Court has voiced concern regarding procedural and administrative lapses within its Registry. Over the past few months, different Benches of the Court have highlighted issues relating to listing procedures, communication of judicial orders and administrative coordination in case management.
The Court has repeatedly emphasised that efficient functioning of the Registry is essential to ensuring timely access to justice and maintaining confidence in the judicial process.
In May this year, a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant had sharply criticised the Registry after discovering that notice had not been issued to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate despite a clear direction passed by the Court.
Describing the lapse as “very nasty,” the Bench ordered a fact-finding exercise to determine how the Court’s order had been processed and why the notice was not issued as directed.
The Registrar (Judicial) was asked to conduct an inquiry and identify the circumstances that led to the failure in implementing the Court’s order. The incident prompted the Court to reiterate the need for greater administrative vigilance in the handling of judicial directions.
The Court had also raised concerns in February 2026 when a petition that had already been dismissed by a three-judge Bench resurfaced before another Bench of the Supreme Court. The development was described by the Court as “shocking”, with the Bench indicating that such procedural irregularities could undermine the integrity of judicial processes.
At that stage, the Court had signalled the possibility of a broader administrative review of Registry procedures and had indicated that responsibility would be fixed wherever lapses were identified.
Apart from these instances, several Benches have previously highlighted issues relating to connected matters being listed before different Benches, delays in processing case papers and inconsistencies in administrative handling. Judges have repeatedly stressed that proper coordination and adherence to established procedures are critical for the smooth functioning of the country’s highest court.
The Supreme Court has also underlined that administrative efficiency is an integral component of judicial administration, particularly given the large volume of cases handled by the institution.
The latest remarks by CJI Surya Kant indicate the Court’s continuing focus on ensuring accountability within the Registry and strengthening internal administrative mechanisms. By seeking an immediate written complaint and promising to personally examine the issue, the Court signalled that allegations involving delays in listing urgent matters would be scrutinised carefully.
The matter is now expected to be examined administratively once the complaint is submitted, with the Court indicating that action would follow if any lapse on the part of Registry officials is established.