Litigant Filing A Case Is A Manifestation Of His Confidence In The Justice Delivery System: Kerala HC Asks Registry To Ensure Expeditious Curing Of Defects

The Kerala High Court on Thursday disposed of a contempt petition alleging that the Registry did not list a couple of petitions before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner.

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P reminded the Registry that the filing of a case by a litigant before this institution is a manifestation of the confidence reposed by the litigant in the justice delivery system in our country.

"The right of access to justice is fundamental to the citizenry and is today recognised as an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The significance of this right lies in the fact that it is essentially one that is designed to effectuate the rule of law which is a basic feature of our Constitution and a guiding principle that informs the justice delivery system in our country."

The Court added that as an institution of governance under the Constitution, it becomes incumbent on the part of the Judiciary to ensure that the cause of a litigant is brought before the adjudicating authority with due expedition always remembering that a delay in processing of applications is detrimental to the cause of justice.

The petitioner had moved two writ petitions seeking the constitution of an in-house committee to probe into an alleged judicial misconduct which was presented to the Registry in June 2021. The Registry detected defects in the pleas which were cured by the petitioner in two days.

Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy appearing for the petitioner questioned the propriety of the Registry in raising fresh defects periodically after the earlier defects stood either cured or answered by him.

He had further contested the propriety of the Registry holding on to the file, in which initially a defect was noted, but subsequently either answered or cured by the respective counsel, and ignoring his request to send the matter before the Bench for consideration on merit.

During the course of the hearing, the Court sought an explanation from its Registrar (Judicial) as to why these petitions were not listed before the concerned Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel.

The Registrar was thereby directed to file its response within three weeks.

Thereafter, the Registrar filed an affidavit on April 1 giving her explanation for the delay that was occasioned in putting up the file before the jurisdictional court.

However, the Bench was not satisfied with the same and it was found that there was no satisfactory justification for the repeated noting of defects by the Registry in the affidavit.

Appearing through Advocate BG. Harindranath, the Registrar thus undertook to file another affidavit in the matter.

In the second affidavit, the Registrar tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology before the Court for the laxity in not implementing the directions contained in the decision in Ayub Khan P.A (supra).

She further submitted that instructions would be issued to the Registry forthwith to the effect that all the defects which come to the notice of the Registry shall be pointed out at first instance itself to facilitate curing of defects with all possible expedition.

It was further clarified that instructions would be issued to the Registry not to raise fresh defects periodically after the earlier defects have been cured or answered.

Satisfied with the subsequent affidavit, the Court decided to close the contempt petition. It also recorded the expression of remorse at the treatment meted out to the petitioner's counsel and the assurance that in future, the Registry would not note defects in a phased manner and that the directions already issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan [supra] will be adhered to in letter and spirit.

As such, the plea was disposed of. 

Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170

Click Here To Read/Download The Order