The Bench, consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed concern after discovering that a previous order from August 2023 was missing from the paper book of a Special Leave Petition (SLP), and that the case file lacked a critical office report.
NEW DELHI: On August 20, the Supreme Court issued a warning to the Registrar (Judicial Listing), emphasizing the importance of diligence by dealing assistants and senior court assistants in performing their duties.
READ ALSO: [Breaking] CJI Merges Registrar’s Courts for Better Case Management
The Bench, consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed concern after discovering that a previous order from August 2023 was missing from the paper book of a Special Leave Petition (SLP), and that the case file lacked a critical office report.
The Court also noted the absence of an official report validating the Registry’s conclusion that the SLP was not time-barred.
“The Registrar shall ensure that the dealing assistants and senior court assistants diligently perform their work. Any recurrence of errors or negligence of the kind we have observed, if brought to our notice again, may lead to serious consequences,”
the Court cautioned.
While the SLP initially appeared time-barred, the Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the Registry had deemed the application for condonation of delay unnecessary, as the SLP had been filed within the limitation period. This conclusion was based on excluding the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
The Court noted,
“We are informed that this opinion was formed by the Registry on the grounds that the petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment, and the time taken to obtain this copy was excluded in calculating the limitation period.”
READ ALSO: SC Registrar Rejects Govt’s Application for Clarification on ‘2G Spectrum Allocation’
Despite this, the Court highlighted the absence of an official report on record supporting the Registry’s conclusion.
“There is, however, no report to that effect on record,” the Bench observed.
The Court directed the Registry to submit a report clarifying the basis for its determination that the SLP was filed on time. The report is to be submitted within a week, and the SLP is set to be heard again in ten days.
The Court directed,
“The Registry is to provide the report prepared, if any, when forming the opinion that the SLP was filed within the limitation period and is not time-barred. This report must be submitted within a week. Re-list the SLP after ten days along with the report.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
