Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Dismisses Judicial Officer's Petition Alleging Unprofessional Activities By Top Court's Registry

Sanya Talwar
14 Dec 2020 6:31 AM GMT
Supreme Court Dismisses Judicial Officers Petition Alleging Unprofessional Activities By Top Courts Registry
x

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition by a Judicial Officer of Maharashtra alleging unprofessional activities of it's Registry in terms of unequal treatment to him as well as the common man in terms of listings as well as pointing unnecessary defects.A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun refused to entertain the petition.The Judicial...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition by a Judicial Officer of Maharashtra alleging unprofessional activities of it's Registry in terms of unequal treatment to him as well as the common man in terms of listings as well as pointing unnecessary defects.

A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun refused to entertain the petition.

The Judicial Magistrate Syedullah Khaleelullah Khan has narrated the alleged unequal treatment by the Registry stated that he had filed a writ petition in February 2016 in order to reconsider a judgment titled All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & Ors (2002) 4 SCC 247 & amend the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.

Notice was issued on the petition and it was tagged with similar petitions, after which it was dismissed on February 19, 2020, the review to which was dismissed on August 5. The petitioner states that he then filed a Curative Petition through e-filing and 9 defects were pointed out by the Registry, which were cured on the same day. It is stated that even after removing defects and constantly reaching out to the Registry regarding the registration of his petition, the same was not done.

In this context, it is averred:

"On 17.10.2020, Section X has informed the petitioner by an E-mail vide PID: 103773/2020 that he has removed some defects by filing documents on 03.10.2020. It has stated to the petitioner that he has given Explanation for not removing defect Nos.3 & 4 but the petitioner was informed to remove the following defects ―

1. Certificate of Senior Advocate is required to be filed.

2. Certificate by Petitioner in person is also required to be filed.

3. Refiled Curative petition and application is unsigned."

It has been alleged that acts of the Registry in relation to the Curative Petition of the petitioner are discriminatory, irrational and unreasonable. Registry has deliberately not scrutinized the Curative Petition of the petitioner for 22 days. Such act of the Registry is discriminatory and thus illegal, it is averred.

The plea has also laid down a table stipulating 19 petitions of which defects were cured and they were listed by the Registry.

"Petitioner most humbly submits that he has felt that it is his bounden duty to bring the ground reality to the notice of the Honorable Court so that the corrective action and measures are taken to avoid repetition of unequal treatment to the seekers of JUSTICE which results in violation of ARTICLE 14 of the Constitution of India"

- Plea in SC

The Judicial Officer states that conduct of the Registry should be such that there shall not be any room for suspicion. "Unfortunately, such is not the case. Someone has said that Words may lie but Actions will always tell the Truth. History shows that not only the Litigants and Lawyers have questioned the Registry but at times this Hon'ble Court has pulled up the Registry for its omission(s) and commission(s). Same has been reported by Online Law Journals from time to time," it is added.

Further the Petitioner seeks striking down of the requirement of filing CERTIFICATE issued by a designated Senior Advocate. He has stated that this practice has only increased the costs of litigation. "A study of the fate of the Curative Petitions filed in this Hon'ble Court along with such certificate would show that it has become empty formality" and that "the time has come to have a fresh look and to reconsider the requirement of filing such certificate along with the Curative Petition".

Additionally, the plea seeks issuance of appropriate directions for taking action against erring officers for allegedly giving unequal treatment to the equals and for the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Next Story
Share it