Supreme Court Upholds Registrar’s Decision on Special Leave Petition Against Administrative HC Order
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has made a significant observation regarding the scope of special leave petitions (SLPs). The apex court noted that an SLP challenging an order passed by the High Court on the administrative side is not permissible.
The case in question involved the petitioner, Nimmanapally Surya Reddy, who took issue with an administrative order issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Telangana. Reddy’s contention was against the rejection of his plea, which sought the implementation of the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) directions for online hearings. He also wanted permission to file contempt petitions and other petitions online and to have them heard online. However, the Supreme Court Registrar declined to register the Special Leave Petition. In response, Reddy filed an appeal.
Justice KV Viswanathan, while deliberating on the matter, referred to a precedent: Dev Singh and Others vs. Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 169. He quoted,
Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Since no Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order, there is nothing wrong with the order of the Registrar and the order dated 6th January, 2023 passed by the Registrar is upheld.”
This decision underscores the boundaries set by the Constitution of India, specifically Article 136. It clearly states that no Special Leave Petition can be filed against an administrative order. The provision in Article 136 is explicit in its intent, allowing SLPs only from adjudications of courts and tribunals, and such adjudications must be inherently judicial.
The case, titled Nimmanapally Surya Reddy vs Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana – 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755, serves as a reminder of the limitations and the precise nature of the legal instruments available to litigants in the country.
For those closely following the legal landscape, this decision provides clarity on the scope and application of SLPs, especially when challenging administrative orders from higher courts.
