Today, On 4th May, The Supreme Court criticised its Registry, calling its conduct nasty and saying officials behave as if they are super Chief Justice of India. CJI remarked, “Very nasty registry… each one here considers themselves super Chief Justice of India.”
The Supreme Court rebuked the apex court Registry, describing its conduct as nasty and remarking that its officials behave as if they are acting like a super Chief Justice of India.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while hearing a bail application filed by Ayushi Mittal alias Ayushi Agarwal, an accused in an alleged investment fraud reportedly exceeding Rs.37,000 crore.
The CJI referred to an order dated March 23 and questioned how the Registry staff interpreted the court’s direction as being one that did not require issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate and other respondents.
The CJI said,
“The registry is acting very nasty,”,
CJI added,
“Very nasty registry… Each one sitting here considers themselves as super Chief Justice of India.”
In its subsequent order, the bench stated,
“Notice has not been issued to the ED director stating no such order was passed. Let a fact finding inquiry be undertaken by the registrar judicial (of the apex court) as to how our March 23 order does not mean notice to the ED. Let notice be served to the Directorate of Enforcement.”
Ayushi Mittal, her husband, and their company are accused of running a major investment fraud. While the defence maintains that a significant portion of the money has been returned to investors, several hundred crore rupees remain in bank accounts that are currently frozen by the ED.
In the March 23 order, the bench had allowed an oral request by the counsel for the Rajasthan government who was a party in the case for the ED to be impleaded.
The objective was to decide whether all movable and immovable assets belonging to the petitioner and her extended family had been properly attached.
The bench also reiterated that it would not examine the bail request on its merits unless a comprehensive description of the assets was furnished.
It directed the petitioner’s legal representative to file a detailed affidavit listing the immovable properties held by the petitioner, her husband, their children, parents, siblings, and parents-in-law.
The bench further sought particulars of assets of the company’s directors, managers, and key personnel. It had said it would not consider the bail plea on merits until the complete details were submitted.
The bench assigned the registrar judicial the task of probing the administrative lapse within the Registry to determine why the earlier directions were not followed. It said the matter will be listed in May.