The Court stressed that when it issues a specific order for a petition to be listed on a particular date, the Registry must comply or provide a valid explanation for any delay. The Bench instructed the Registrar (Judicial Listing) to address this default and provide an explanation.
NEW DELHI: On August 27, the Supreme Court reprimanded its Registry for failing to list a Special Leave Petition (SLP) as directed. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed dissatisfaction after learning from counsel that SLP (C) Diary No.25687/2024, which was ordered to be listed on this date on August 12, had not been scheduled.
The Court stressed that when it issues a specific order for a petition to be listed on a particular date, the Registry must comply or provide a valid explanation for any delay. The Bench instructed the Registrar (Judicial Listing) to address this default and provide an explanation.
The Court remarked,
“Despite the specific order dated August 12, 2024, the Registry has not listed SLP (C) Diary No.25687/2024 today. When the Court issues a specific listing order, the Registry must explain any non-compliance.”
In related news, on August 20, the Court had issued a stern warning to the Registrar (Judicial Listing), stressing that dealing assistants and senior court assistants must carry out their duties with care. The Court warned that repeated errors or negligence in handling case files could lead to serious repercussions.
This warning followed observations that a previous order from August 2023 was missing from the SLP’s paper book, and the case file lacked a crucial office report. The Court also noted the absence of an official report supporting the Registry’s claim that the SLP was not time-barred.
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.
READ ALSO: “Complete Anarchy, How Can Supreme Court Registry Do That?”: SC Slammed its Registry
The Court had cautioned,
“The Registrar must ensure that dealing assistants and senior court assistants perform their duties diligently. Any further errors or negligence of this nature may result in serious consequences.”
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.”
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.”