In a recent development at the Supreme Court of India, the court’s bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed their dissatisfaction with the Registry staff for not adhering to a specific judicial directive concerning the scheduling of cases. This issue came to light during a session held to address a batch of connected matters, including the lead matter, Civil Appeal No. 4866/2015 (Commander N Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.).
Also read- Property Rights Can’t Be Denied To Children From Void Marriage: Supreme Court (lawchakra.in)
The bench highlighted that these matters were initially ordered to be listed on December 7, 2023. However, Senior Advocate DN Goburdhun brought to the court’s attention that the cases were instead listed on December 8, 2023, thereby not complying with the court’s previous order. This discrepancy prompted the court to seek an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial Listing) regarding the deviation from the scheduled listing date.
Upon review, the Registrar’s report revealed that the decision to list the matters on December 8 was based on a circular dated February 14, 2023. This circular stated that Wednesdays and Thursdays would be designated as regular hearing days, with no
“After Notice Miscellaneous Matter”
to be listed on these days. However, the bench observed that the lead matter, being a Civil Appeal, should have been listed as per the circular’s stipulations, even on the regular hearing days.
The court expressed concern over the apparent disregard for the judicial order by some staff members, who bypassed the directive to list the Civil Appeal and connected matters on the regular list for December 7, 2023. The bench remarked,
“Though we are not inclined to initiate any action, what is worrying is that some members of the staff have bypassed the judicial order directing listing of the Civil Appeal along with the connected matters on 7th December, 2023 on regular list. We wonder how a judicial order could have been violated like this.”
Despite these concerns, the court decided not to take any action in light of the Registrar’s report. The case, represented by Senior Advocates DN Goburdhun, V Mohna, and R Bala, along with AORs Dr. N Visakamurthy and Alok Gupta, and Advocates Sachin Sharma, PV Yogeshswaran, Vinayak Sharma, and Dr. Arun Kr Yadav, Aga, is now part of the court record as 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 49.
This incident underscores the importance of adherence to judicial orders and the procedural integrity within the judicial system, highlighting the need for meticulous compliance with court directives by all involved in the legal process.
