Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Registry Bias: Reepak Kansal vs. Supreme Court of India (2020)

Date of the Judgment: July 6, 2020

Citation: Not Available in Source

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a lawyer accuse the Supreme Court Registry of bias and demand action against its officers for allegedly favoring influential lawyers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a writ petition filed by an advocate, who claimed that the Registry was not giving equal treatment to ordinary lawyers and was instead favoring law firms and influential lawyers by listing their cases promptly and not pointing out unnecessary defects. The bench, consisting of Justices Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer, dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the allegations.

Case Background

The petitioner, an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the Registry of the Supreme Court was discriminating against ordinary lawyers and litigants. He claimed that the Registry favored certain law firms and influential advocates by listing their cases promptly, not pointing out unnecessary defects, and tagging cases without court orders. The petitioner cited three specific instances to support his claims.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, including the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court and other officers, to treat all cases equally, refund excess court fees, and cease the practice of tagging cases without proper authorization. He also requested action against erring officers for their involvement in listing, clearing, and bench hunting.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner, Reepak Kansal, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, alleging discrimination by the Supreme Court Registry. The case was initially listed for June 18, 2020. However, on June 17, 2020, the petitioner circulated a letter stating he expected to be called by the Registrar for an interaction before arguing the case. He also sought six weeks to file additional evidence. The court declined the adjournment and heard the petitioner on June 19, 2020, where he reiterated his claims of discrimination.

Legal Framework

This case was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The petitioner invoked this article to seek redressal for alleged discriminatory practices by the Supreme Court Registry.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court Registry was not giving equal treatment to ordinary lawyers and litigants.
• He contended that the Registry favored certain law firms and influential advocates by listing their cases promptly, not pointing out unnecessary defects, and tagging cases without court orders.
• He cited three instances to support his claims:
  • Writ Petition (Civil) D. No.10951 of 2020: Filed on 16.04.2020, defects were pointed out, but the matter was listed and decided on 27.04.2020, allegedly after the petitioner paid additional court fees.
  • Writ Petition (Civil) D.No.11236 of 2020: Filed on 12.05.2020, but not listed by the Registry.
  • Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2020 (Diary No.11552 of 2020): Filed on 20.05.2020, with defects pointed out after six days despite an urgency application, and the matter was listed for 6.07.2020 (computer-generated), which would render the case infructuous.
• The petitioner also alleged that in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. UOI, W.P. Diary No.11006 of 2020, filed on 23.04.2020, the Registry did not point out any defects and listed it urgently, despite the lockdown.
• The petitioner argued that the Registry was involved in illegal activities related to listing, clearing, and bench hunting.
• He sought action against the erring officers and a directive to treat all cases equally.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents did not make any specific submissions in the judgment. However, the court examined the records and found that the Registry had acted appropriately.
• The court noted that Writ Petition (Civil) D. No.10951 of 2020 was indeed listed, heard, and decided on 27.04.2020, despite some defects, and there was no inordinate delay.
• The court observed that Writ Petition (Civil) D.No.11236 of 2020 was lying with defects and hence not listed.
• The court found that Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2020 (D. No.11552 of 2020) was delayed due to the petitioner’s own delay in removing defects, and it was eventually listed on 12.06.2020, not 6.07.2020 as claimed by the petitioner.
• The court clarified that the case of Arnab Goswami was listed urgently due to an order from a competent authority, given its relation to liberty and freedom of the media.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the court addressed was whether the Supreme Court Registry was discriminating against ordinary lawyers and litigants, as alleged by the petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court in R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Writ Petition (C) No.612 of 2016*, emphasized the high standards of conduct expected from lawyers, who are officers of the court and part of the judicial system. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining the nobility of the legal profession and the need for lawyers to act with integrity and responsibility.
• The Court in Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 156*, emphasized that a petition filed under Article 32 in the form of PIL with mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court and also against the other constitutional institutions in a careless manner, meaningless and as contradictory pleadings, clumsy allegations, contempt was ordered to be drawn.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Court found that the petitioner’s allegations of discrimination against the Registry were baseless and unsubstantiated.
• The Court noted that the delays in the petitioner’s cases were primarily due to defects in the petitions filed by him and his own delay in rectifying those defects.
• The Court emphasized that the Registry was working under difficult circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic, with reduced staff and increased workload.
• The Court observed that the petitioner, being an advocate of the Supreme Court, should have been more responsible and careful before making such serious allegations against the Registry.
• The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system, and expressed concern over the growing trend of blaming the Registry for no good reason.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s claims of discrimination and favoritism. It analyzed the facts of the cases cited by the petitioner and found that the delays were not due to any discriminatory practices by the Registry. The Court also considered the difficult circumstances under which the Registry was functioning during the pandemic. The Court rejected the petitioner’s claims and dismissed the petition.

The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system. It emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a responsibility to act with integrity and not to make baseless allegations against the Registry. The Court also observed that the petitioner should have been more careful before filing such a petition.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had impleaded the wrong parties and should have impleaded the Supreme Court of India through the Secretary General. This was another reason for dismissing the petition.

The Court quoted from R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Writ Petition (C) No.612 of 2016, emphasizing the high standards of conduct expected from lawyers, stating, “The role of Lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain the high standard.”

The Court further observed, “We expect members of the noble fraternity to respect themselves first. They are an intellectual class of the society. What may be proper for others may still be improper for them, the expectations from them is to be exemplary to the entire society, then only the dignity of noble profession and judicial system can be protected.”

The Court also stated, “The Registry is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Lawyers should be careful and responsible before making allegations against the Registry of the Supreme Court.
• Delays in listing cases are not always due to discrimination but can be due to defects in the petitions and the petitioner’s own delay in curing them.
• The Registry of the Supreme Court works under difficult circumstances, especially during a pandemic, and should be respected for its efforts.
• The dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system should be maintained by all members of the Bar.
• Baseless and reckless allegations against the Registry are not acceptable and can lead to the imposition of costs.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, except to impose a cost of Rs. 100 on the petitioner.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court Registry is not discriminating against ordinary lawyers and litigants, and that delays in listing cases are often due to defects in the petitions and the petitioner’s own delay in curing them. The case also reiterates the high standards of conduct expected from lawyers, who are officers of the court and part of the judicial system. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Reepak Kansal, an advocate, who alleged discrimination by the Supreme Court Registry. The Court found no merit in the allegations and held that the delays in the petitioner’s cases were due to defects in the petitions and his own delay in curing them. The Court also emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system. The petitioner was also imposed with a cost of Rs. 100.

Category

Parent Category: Supreme Court of India

• Child Category: Registry of Supreme Court
• Child Category: Article 32, Constitution of India
• Child Category: Professional Ethics

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Reepak Kansal vs. Supreme Court of India case?

A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court Registry was discriminating against ordinary lawyers and litigants, as alleged by the petitioner.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no evidence of discrimination. The court held that the delays in the petitioner’s cases were due to defects in the petitions and his own delay in curing them.

Q: What is Article 32 of the Constitution of India?

A: Article 32 grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this case for lawyers?

A: Lawyers should be careful and responsible before making allegations against the Registry, and they should ensure that their petitions are free from defects. They should also respect the Registry for its efforts, especially during difficult times.

Q: What does the Supreme Court expect from lawyers?

A: The Supreme Court expects lawyers to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, act with integrity, and not make baseless allegations against the Registry. They are considered officers of the court and must uphold the standards of the profession.