Registry's Functioning Requires Deeper Probe; Some Officials Think They Last In SC More Than Judges & Can Do Whatever : CJI

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, today expressed concerns over the workings of the Registry and hinted at undertaking a 'deeper probe' as to how similar matters were being listed before different benches.

He said that he will take steps to reform the Registry during his term.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the writ petition challenging the UP Gangsters Act and raising the issue of it being repugnant to the definition of "organised crime" under the central law, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, for the State of Uttar Pradesh, then informed the bench that in 2022, a 3-judge bench had refused to entertain a challenge to the UP Gangsters Act in Md. Anas Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh WP (Crl) 492/2022.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, for the petitioner, then informed that a division bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan is presently seized of another matter(Siraj Ahmad Khan v State of UP) on the issue of repugnancy between various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangster Act), and Section 111(organised crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The counsel for the petitioner requested the bench to tag the present matter with the pending one before the bench of Justice Pardiwala. Alam said that the two-judge bench has listed the matter for hearing to examine the issue of repugnancy, and it was part-heard earlier.

The CJI took a stern view of how similar matters were getting listed before different benches. He said : "The system of divding Supreme Court into benches is very disturbing...I would like to examine on the administrative side of how things have moved and how it's listed now."

The ASG suggested that the matter before the two-judge bench can be brought before the CJI's bench by tagging it with the present matter. Alam replied that it was "an unfair submission".

The ASG said that the Union and other States, which have made laws on organised crimes, should be heard in the matter. "Let all the matter come before this bench," ASG said. Refuting this, Alam said, "This is again an unfair statement. The matter before the two-judge bench is part-heard and the same plea was taken there."

The CJI then said, "Don't doubt the power of the Chief Justice", indicating that as master of the roster, he has the power to assign cases.

Alam then sought to withdraw the petition. "Under the circumstances, allow me to withdraw".

"No, no question of withdrawal," CJI refused to allow him to withdraw, adding that the matter required a deeper probe. He said :

"The matter requires a deeper probe...it's about the functioning of the Registry of this Court. The biggest challenge before me is the Registry of this Court, so I have to hold a deeper probe into that affair...that how the matter, after one bench expressed final opinion, how the matters travel to the other bench, what is that mechanism they are using ...we are finding this on day to day now..."

Alam said that the Court needs to examine this issue.

Referring to a recent complaint regarding the Registry, the CJI further expressed that officers within the Registry treated judges as if they were in a 'transit stage'.

"Despite the mechanism that I have created, despite that thing being beyond control...last week I had a complaint, I was nearly shocked to find out what is happening in the Registry of this Court. There are employees/ officials who think they are here for 20 years or 30 years - the judge will go maximum till 8 years, so they think we all are here for a transit stage, we come and go, they are the permanent people, and therefore things must happen as they want. That is what is bothering me, and If I am not able to bring this reform before I demit office, then it will be a failure in my duty."

The matter will now be heard on March 25.

Case Details : IRFAN SOLANKI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH| W.P.(Crl.) No. 000084 / 2026