Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Alleging Bias in Case Listing Process
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India & Ors., dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court, alleged that the Registry of the Court was favoring influential lawyers and law firms in listing cases and that ordinary petitioners were being subjected to unnecessary scrutiny and delays. The Court found no merit in these allegations and imposed a nominal cost on the petitioner.
The petition raised concerns about alleged discrimination in case listing, highlighting specific instances where cases filed by prominent lawyers were listed immediately while those filed by the petitioner faced unnecessary hurdles. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and procedures followed by the Registry, concluded that the allegations were baseless and that the listing of cases followed established protocols.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an advocate, sought directions against the Supreme Court Registry, alleging preferential treatment in the listing of cases. His grievances included:
- Delay in listing his cases despite requests for urgent hearing.
- Unjustified objections raised by the Registry regarding procedural defects.
- Instances where cases filed by influential lawyers were listed and heard on the same day without procedural scrutiny.
- Lack of transparency in the Registry’s functioning.
The petition specifically referred to a case filed by a prominent media personality, which was listed on the same day of filing, while the petitioner’s case was delayed despite filing an urgency request.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued:
- The Registry was biased in favor of certain influential lawyers and law firms.
- His cases faced excessive scrutiny, including demands for additional court fees and unnecessary documentation.
- The Court’s established norms for case listing were not being followed in a uniform manner.
- He was subjected to discrimination, which violated Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
Arguments of the Respondent
The Secretary-General and other officials of the Supreme Court Registry countered:
- The listing of cases was based on established rules and procedures.
- Any defects in the petitioner’s cases were pointed out as per standard practice.
- The allegations of favoritism were unfounded, as urgent cases were handled based on judicial discretion.
- COVID-19 restrictions had limited the functioning of the Court, impacting the speed of case listings.
Supreme Court’s Key Findings
1. No Evidence of Bias in Case Listing
The Court reviewed the documents and found no substantial evidence supporting the claim that the Registry was selectively listing cases. It ruled:
“The allegations of discrimination in case listing are without any factual basis and appear to be based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence.”
2. Registry’s Role in Case Management
The Court reiterated that the Registry functions under strict procedural norms and does not exercise discretion in choosing cases for listing. It observed:
“The Registry acts as an administrative body and does not have the authority to prioritize one case over another based on personal discretion.”
3. Rejection of Comparisons with Other Cases
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s comparison with other cases, stating that different cases have different levels of urgency, and some may require immediate attention. It held:
“Matters involving personal liberty or urgent constitutional challenges may warrant immediate hearing, and judicial discretion in such cases cannot be questioned.”
4. Conduct of the Petitioner
The Court noted that the petitioner, despite being an advocate, filed the petition without first collecting necessary material evidence. It emphasized:
“An advocate is expected to exercise due diligence before making serious allegations against the Court’s administrative processes.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court:
- Dismissed the writ petition.
- Imposed a nominal cost of Rs. 100 on the petitioner as a reminder of professional responsibility.
- Reaffirmed that the Registry follows due process in case listing.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- The Supreme Court Registry follows established procedures, and allegations of favoritism require substantial proof.
- Urgent hearings are determined by judicial discretion, not by administrative preference.
- Advocates must exercise caution when making allegations against judicial institutions.
- The Court will not entertain speculative claims against its administrative processes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the integrity of the judicial listing process and ensures that baseless claims do not undermine the judiciary’s credibility. The judgment sends a clear message that fairness in judicial administration must be backed by evidence, and frivolous petitions will not be entertained.
Petitioner Name: Reepak Kansal.Respondent Name: Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.Place Of Incident: New Delhi.Judgment Date: 06-07-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Reepak Kansal vs Secretary-General, S Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-07-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
