Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that it has repeatedly drawn the Registry’s attention to the non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules and other procedural norms concerning the registration of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) through judicial orders. However, it noted that no apparent follow-up measures have been undertaken to rectify these lapses or discontinue the Registry’s improper practices that contravene the Supreme Court Rules.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report informing the court on the next date whether any follow-up action has been taken on the judicial orders concerning the functioning of the Registry, and if so, to detail the steps implemented so far.

Court passed the order while expressing its displeasure over the Registry accepting counter affidavit from a respondent without the court according impleadment application of the party concerned.

On November 14, 2024, the court sought an explanation from its Registry as to how, such counter affidavit from the proposed respondent complainant, who was not a party, could be accepted.

In its response, the Registry officers submitted that the applicant had e-filed application seeking for impleadment of complainant i.e. Amandeep Singh as respondent along with counter affidavit. The said application was registered by Section I-B and forwarded to Section II-B, and as per practice, the documents received from counsel through Section I-B were presented before the court with the office report of November 13, 2024.

Since there is no specific rules in this regard and as per practice the same was done with a view that in case the counsel mention regarding the said document before the court during the proceeding, the same must be available to the court to avoid any inconvenience to the court, they said, deeply regretting the inconvenience caused to the court.

The bench, however, said, "It hardly needs to be stated that unless the applicant was permitted to be impleaded by the court and unless he was permitted to file counter affidavit or the documents, the concerned Section/Branch of the Registry could not have accepted the said counter affidavit or the documents from the proposed party, and made such counter/documents part of the record".

It said, when the applicant was not a party respondent in the special leave petition, he could not have filed either the counter affidavit or presented any documents along therewith.

"It is very unfortunate that the concerned Dealing Assistant has tried to justify the lapse quoting the practice prevailing in the Registry, and the concerned Branch Officer and the Assistant Registrar have simply put their signatures on such unacceptable justification," the bench said.

The bench further noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the relevant Section/Branch of the Registry has been accepting documents, replies, and counter-affidavits from individuals who are neither respondents in the proceedings nor have filed a caveat.

"Many a times, the documents would be accepted, though absolutely illegible and not even type written," the bench highlighted.

Court was dealing with a SLP filed by Harmanpreet Singh against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment of May 17, 2024.

Case Title: Harmanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab