The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Reepak Kansal seeking direction to the registry of the court not to give preference to the cases filed by ‘influential lawyers’/ ‘petitioners’, ‘law firms’, etc. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and S Abdul Nazeer also imposed cost of Rs.100/on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibility towards noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such a petition.
“The staff of this Court is working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers, have suffered due to Covid19. During such a hard time, it was not expected of the petitioner who is an officer of this Court to file such a petition to demoralize the Registry of this Court instead of recognizing the task undertaken by them even during pandemic and lockdown period”, the court said.
The court added that it has become a widespread practice to blame the Registry for no good reasons. It further said to err is human, as many petitions are filed with defects, and defects are not cured for years together.
“A large number of such cases were listed in the recent past before the Court for removal of defects which were pending for years. In such situation, when the pandemic is going on, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry of this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system”, said Justices Arun Mishra and Abdul Nazeer.
The court also took judicial notice of the fact that such evil is also spreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamed unnecessarily for no good reasons. “It is to be remembered by worthy lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; they are officers of the Court and are a class apart in the society”, the bench said.
The Registry, according to the court, is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. The court went on to state that Bar is equally respected and responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence.
“We also expect from the Registry to work efficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the lawyers also to remove the defects effectively and not to unnecessarily cast aspersions on the system”, the court lamented.
Petitioner had alleged that the petition filed by Arnab Goswami at 08:07 pm was without annexure. The Registry, however, had chosen not to point out any defects, and a special supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. He added that the category was not specified in the notification to be heard during a nationwide lockdown. No procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearing during the lockdown.
He also alleged that despite the letter of urgency, the Registry failed to register and list the writ petition filed by him.