Today, On 21st October, The Supreme Court has chosen not to take action against the Registry concerning the premature listing of a bail plea. The Court noted that the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar acknowledged their error in disregarding a prior court order by scheduling the plea for an earlier date. This acknowledgment is crucial in understanding the procedural missteps involved. By not intervening, the Court aims to maintain the integrity of the judicial process while allowing for accountability within the Registry.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Monday, decided not to take action against its Registry staff after the relevant officers acknowledged that they had mistakenly scheduled a bail application in a money-laundering case ahead of its intended date.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that both the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar admitted their error in overriding a previous court order.
Read Also: “Complete Anarchy, How Can Supreme Court Registry Do That?”: SC Slammed its Registry
The Court stated,
“We have perused the report by the registry. The concerned Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar have accepted that by ignoring that one of the petitions was already listed on (so and so date), prayer was made to CJI to list both together. Since the mistake has been accepted, no action is called for.”
The case, which initially set for hearing on October 14, was mistakenly listed on September 20, raising alarms about potential manipulation in the scheduling of cases before the Supreme Court.
Previously, the Court had instructed the Registry to clarify this irregularity, labelling the incident as “unacceptable” and requesting a detailed report on the situation. Upon reviewing the findings, the Bench observed that the error stemmed from a request made to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to consider two related petitions together, without taking into account the original hearing date of one of those petitions.
This particular case involves a man accused of money laundering, with Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan identified as the principal accused. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Khan acquired immovable properties under the names of proxies specifically Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir while obscuring the actual amounts involved in these transactions.
The implications of this case are significant, not only for the individuals involved but also for the integrity of the judicial process, as it raises questions about the management of case listings and the potential for undue influence in high-profile legal matters.
Read Also: Supreme Court Slams SC Registry for Ignoring Repeated Directions on Case File Management
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to refrain from taking action against the Registry for the premature listing of a bail plea highlights the complexity of judicial administration. By acknowledging the mistake made by the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar and choosing a path of constructive engagement, the Court promotes a culture of accountability and improvement. This ruling not only reinforces the integrity of the judicial process but also emphasizes the need for continuous support and training for those involved in court administration.
Ultimately, it is through such balanced approaches that the justice system can enhance its effectiveness and uphold the rights of all individuals seeking legal redress.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
