Registry Has No Authority To Delete A Case From Cause List Unless Specifically Ordered By Concerned Bench Or Chief Justice: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

5 Feb 2025 10:13 AM IST

  • Registry Has No Authority To Delete A Case From Cause List Unless Specifically Ordered By Concerned Bench Or Chief Justice: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court on Monday (February 4) held that the Registry has no authority to delete a case from the cause list once it has been listed, unless there is a specific order from the concerned bench or the Chief Justice of India.“The fact that service of notice of making alternate arrangements was not served is no ground to delete a case which is notified on the cause list. Once the case...

    The Supreme Court on Monday (February 4) held that the Registry has no authority to delete a case from the cause list once it has been listed, unless there is a specific order from the concerned bench or the Chief Justice of India.

    The fact that service of notice of making alternate arrangements was not served is no ground to delete a case which is notified on the cause list. Once the case is notified on the cause list, unless there is a specific order to that effect, either of the bench concerned or Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Registry has no authority to delete a case which is already listed”, the Court held.

    A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held this after it noted that the Registry had deleted a case on the ground that the notice of alternate arrangement was not served on the litigant whose Advocate-on-Record had been designated as a Senior Advocate.

    The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) that was originally listed at serial number 11 on January 26, 2025. After the files were circulated and read, the Registry deleted the case from the cause list on the “specious” ground that the notice of alternate arrangement issued to the sole respondent was not received back, the Court said.

    The Court observed that the Registry routinely lists a large number of cases even when notices are either not returned or not served. It held that the non-service of a notice of alternate arrangement was not a valid ground to delete a case that had already been listed in the cause list.

    The Court disposed of the Registry's report with these directions and clarified that no action was warranted against any staff member. The matter has now been scheduled for hearing on February 24, 2025, to enable the petitioner's counsel to address the Court.

    The issue first came to the Court's attention on January 22, 2025, when it noted that the Registry had deleted the case without any valid reason. The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit an explanation for the deletion. It also referred to an earlier order in which Justice Abhay S. Oka was a party, stating that if the Registry wished to delete a notified case for valid reasons, it had a duty to inform the judges in advance and provide reasons for the deletion.

    In compliance with the Court's order, the Registrar (Judicial Listing) submitted a report dated on January 31, 2025. The report stated that the sole respondent was represented by Advocate M.C. Dhingra, who had since been designated as a Senior Advocate. It further stated that a notice of alternate arrangement was issued to the sole respondent and, was delivered on January 27, 2025. However, no one had entered an appearance on behalf of the sole respondent. The Registry confirmed that the service of the notice of alternate arrangement was now complete and that the matter, along with related applications, had been listed before the Court with the office report.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly voiced its displeasure regarding the functioning of its Registry. In previous instances, the Court has criticized the Registry for failing to list cases in compliance with judicial orders. Recently, the Court held that the Registry cannot defy specific order of the Court and refuse to list a case on the ground of procedural non-compliance.

    In August, a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had sought an explanation for a case not being listed as ordered by the Court. Similar concerns have been raised in other cases, with the Registry being called out for procedural lapses.

    Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10642/2019

    Case Title – State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anup Singh 

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Next Story