Court's "Registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the cases on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects": Supreme Court

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." 

-Act I, Scene 4, Hamlet  (1599-1601) by William Shakespeare

In Saddam  MK & Other vs. Union of India, on December 20, 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih observed that the registry cannot refuse to list those cases solely due to the litigant's failure to comply with procedural requirements when specific cases are assigned to be heard by a particular bench of the Court by way of judicial orders. 

It observed:"We do not find any Rule in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which provides that on the ground of the failure to comply with requirements of Rule 2 of Order XV, a case cannot be listed before the Court even if there is a direction of the Court to list it. There may be cases of extreme urgency. In such cases, the Registry cannot rely upon Rule 2 of Order XV and refuse to list the case. "

The order reads: "When there is an order of the Court directing listing of the cases specifically assigned to that Bench, the Registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the cases on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects.  The Registry is relying upon Rule 2 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which enjoins petitioner to serve notice of the caveat along with copy of the petition to the Caveator.  In this case, six petitions were not listed notwithstanding the directions of this Court to list the same on the ground that the Advocate for the petitioner had not produced on record the proof of a service of copies of the petitioners as caveators."

The Court said: "We may at this stage refer to Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  If a caveator files a caveat, he gets right of hearing when the court considers the prayer for interim relief.In appeal or in Special Leave Petition, a caveator does not have right to be heard on the issue of grant of leave or admission of the appeal. He has a right of hearing on the prayer for interim relief. Moreover, apart from the obligation under sub-Section (5) of Section 148A of the petitioner/appellant, under sub-section 3 of Section 148A even this court is under an obligation to issue a notice of the application for interim relief to the caveator once it is noticed that there is a caveat filed."

In in its penultimate paragraph, the order reads: Therefore, when there is a direction of the Court to list SLPs/appeals notwithstanding non-compliance with Rule 2 of Chapter XV of the Rules, Registry can always list the case before the Court with an office report highlighting the failure of the petitioner/appellant to comply with requirements of Rule 2 of Order XV of the Rules.  We hope that the incident of defiance with the order of this Court is not repeated.  However, no action is called for against erring court officials."

In its order, Supreme Court directed "Registrar (Judicial) to take a note of this order" and "list all the matters on 17th January, 2025." The case arose out of ing out of final judgment and order dated June 25, 2024 in CRLA No. 1441/2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The case was registered in the Supreme Court on  July 15, 2024.

On September 13, 2024, Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General had appeared on behalf of Union of India to state that she will appear in those cases where service of notice is not complete. On October 18, 2024, she pointed out that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed 17 Special Leave Petitions for challenging the impugned order(s) to the extent to which the bail was granted to 17 accused. The Court's order of October 18 stated: "It will be appropriate if the present Special Leave Petitions are heard along with aforesaid 17 Special Leave Petitions. After seeking necessary directions from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, all the cases shall be listed on 8th November, 2024."

The order of November 8, 2024 reads:Perused the order dated 18th October, 2024. The order incorporates the numbers of 17 Special Leave Petitions filed by the National Investigation Agency for challenging a part of the same impugned order by which bail was granted.  Therefore, we had issued a direction for placing all the 17 cases before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that all the cases can be assigned to the same Bench. We have perused the administrative order of 5th November, 2024 which says that out of 17 cases which are mentioned in our last order, cases at serial Nos.9 and 15 have not been assigned to this Bench.  The Registry to clarify. List on 18th November, 2024."

The order of November 18 reads: "These matters along with 17 Special Leave Petitions mentioned in the oned in the note presented to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India on 5th November, 2024 shall be listed on 29th November, 2024. All matters will be considered together on 29th November, 2024."

The order of November 29 reads: "Notwithstanding the repeated directions issued by the Court" six Petitions filed by Union of India have not been listed. It states:" Registry owes an explanation to the Court for not listing the aforesaid Petitions in spite of earlier orders. We direct that the above-mentioned six Petitions shall be listed on 16th December, 2024.  The explanation of the Registry will be considered on 16th December, 2024. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial)." 

This isn't the first instance. 

In January 2024, the Supreme Court had criticised the Registry for it's failure to comply with the order directing listing of the Civil Appeal along with the connected matters on  December 7, 2023 on the regular list.

"Though we are not inclined to initiate any action, what is worrying is that some members of the staff have bye-passed the judicial order directing listing of the Civil Appeal along with the connected matters on 7th December 2023 on the regular list. We wonder how judicial order could have been violated like this", a division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed.

The Court noted that although the staff member had relied upon a Circular dated February 14, 2023, it ignored that the lead matter in this group is a Civil Appeal which ought to have been listed,  in terms of the Circular in question.

The Court chose not to initiate action while stating that the Registrar (Judicial Listing) has submitted that the dealing assistant and all staff members have been warned. 

In May 2024, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjayh Karol had sought an explanation from its Registrar (Judicial) against the listing of the case without following the proper procedure.The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was filed and it was listed before the court without an exemption from the surrender application.

Notably, 49th Chief Justice U.U.Lalit had also sought an explanation from the Supreme Court Registry for not listing a matter.  Two days after that Justice Ajay Rastogi told the court master, 'once this court passes a date for listing, the registry has no business changing it'. He observed after being informed by the counsel for one of the parties that the matter had not been listed despite repeated efforts and even after receiving the approval of the Bench in the form of an order. He underlined: "This time, I am telling you very clearly. Next time this is brought to my notice that despite an order of the court, a matter has not been listed, I will take strict action. I will not permit any Registrar to have this discretion. Do not call upon the court to pass such orders," justice Rastogi warned, "But you call upon me, I have no difficulty in passing necessary orders." He observed: "The Registrar is not above our order. They are behaving as if they are running the court."

Prior to this on November 1,2022, a division bench of chief justice Lalit and justice Bela M Trivedi had asked the registry to file an explanation for not listing a matter for over a year and a half, despite it being ready to be listed.  

The bench issued the notice after it came to know about a matter listed, which was ready for listing one and a half years ago. The bench asked the registry to submit its explanations along with reasons for such a long delay in listing the matter. 

Judges from the court have been warning the registry on the listing of matters, despite passing instructions. In August 2024 year, a bench of Justice Dr  D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice A.S.Bopanna had expressed displeasure after being appraised that the registry deleted a matter that was listed from the board. 

The court had said, "Why does the registry delete matters? We read cases and come and they are deleted. Are we the judges or the registry? Tell them if they delete it, they can at least inform us."

Justice M.R.Shah too made similar remarks in August 2024 saying, "Registry cannot delete matters... there are excessive matters, especially considering that judges bunch the cases and list them."

In June 2022, in an abnormal development, the Supreme Court registry had defied a Court's order directing listing of a petition for hearing of a matter.

The non-listing of the petition, despite written orders, left the bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala surprised. The judges were heard sharing their disappointment: "How can the Registrar (Judicial) say the matter won't be listed, after we've directed?" 

It is the norm that after a bench orders, even orally, for listing of a petition on a specific day, the Registry complies with it.

The reason behind the Court's surprise was the non-listing of a Union government's petition which was mentioned by Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (SG) for urgent listing. Mehta had questioned the Tripura High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a PIL challenging the Z+ security cover given to Mukesh Ambani. 

The SG had submitted that the High Court had without territorial or subject jurisdiction  directed the Union home ministry to provide documents substantiating the grant of highest security cover to Ambani and his family.

The bench of Justices Kant and Pardiwala in its order on had said, "Upon being orally mentioned by Tushar Mehta, law officer of India appearing for the petitioner Union of India, seeking urgent listing of the matter, the Registry is directed to list these matters tomorrow, i.e., June, 28, 2022." But, the matter wasn't listed. Later, registry  listed the Union government's special leave petition against the High Court's order on for hearing.

Isn't the conduct of Supreme Court's Registry, an ideal public institution worthy of emulation by other public institutions?