Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against officers of the Registry and the Union of India. He alleged discrimination by the Registry in not giving equal treatment to ordinary lawyers and litigants, favouring influential lawyers and law firms, and causing delays in listing his writ petitions by pointing out unnecessary defects. The petition sought directions for equal treatment, refund of excess court fees, and action against erring officers. The petitioner cited three instances of his writ petitions where defects were pointed out and listing was delayed, contrasting this with the urgent listing of another case. The court heard the petitioner in person and perused the files. It found that in the first instance, the writ petition was filed during the nationwide lockdown, defects were noted, but it was listed, heard, and decided within a short period, with no inordinate delay. In the second instance, the petition remained with defects. In the third instance, the petitioner caused delays in removing defects, and the petition was eventually listed and dismissed. The court noted that the Arnab Goswami case was listed urgently due to its nature concerning liberty and freedom of media, as per competent authority's order. The court considered the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Registry working with reduced strength, and found no justification for the allegations of discrimination. It criticized the petitioner for filing the petition in haste, circulating a letter seeking adjournment, and not collecting evidence beforehand, deeming such conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. The court also found the petition not maintainable as it was filed against the Supreme Court itself but impleaded officers incorrectly. Taking judicial notice of registry functioning during the pandemic, the court emphasized that human error is possible, and staff work under pressure, dismissing the petition and upholding the Registry's actions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - Petitioner, an advocate, filed writ petition under Article 32 alleging discrimination by Registry in listing cases - Court found petition not maintainable as it was filed against the Supreme Court itself but impleaded officers instead of the Court through Secretary General - Held that omission indicated careless conduct and petition was filed in undue haste (Paras 16). B) Court Procedure - Registry Functioning - Equal Treatment and Delay - Supreme Court Rules and Practice Directions - Petitioner alleged Registry favoured influential lawyers and caused delays in listing his defective petitions - Court examined three instances and found defects existed in all petitions, delays were not inordinate, and Registry worked with reduced strength during COVID-19 pandemic - Held no justification for allegations of discrimination, and petitioner's own delays contributed to listing issues (Paras 9-13, 17). C) Professional Ethics - Advocate's Conduct - Duty as Officer of Court - Advocates Act, 1961, and Professional Standards - Petitioner circulated letter seeking adjournment and time to collect evidence after filing petition - Court criticized petitioner for careless and unserious conduct in making allegations without due inquiry - Held such conduct was least expected of an officer of the court and petitioner ought to have been careful before casting aspersions on Registry (Paras 14-15). D) Judicial Administration - Registry Operations During Pandemic - Judicial Notice - Supreme Court of India - Court took judicial notice that many petitions are filed with defects and registry staff work under pressure during pandemic - Acknowledged human error and efforts of staff despite COVID-19 risks - Held it was not expected of petitioner to demoralize Registry during such hard times (Paras 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registry of the Supreme Court of India discriminated against the petitioner by not giving equal treatment and causing delays in listing his writ petitions, and whether the writ petition is maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court found no justification for allegations of discrimination, noted the petition was not maintainable, and criticized the petitioner's conduct.
Law Points
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India
- Judicial review of administrative actions of court registry
- Equal treatment under law
- Maintainability of writ petitions
- Duty of advocates as officers of the court
- Judicial notice of registry functioning during pandemic
