caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Reepak Kansal vs Secretary General Supreme Court … on 6 July, 2020Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.541 OF 2020
REEPAK KANSAL ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
SECRETARYGENERAL,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed
the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against various
officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been
made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed
by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. Prayer has been made to
direct the respondents to give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary
lawyers/ petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund the
excess court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without order or
direction of the Court with other cases. A prayer has also been made to
Signature Not Verified
direct the Secretary General of this Court to take action against the erring
Digitally signed by
MUKESH KUMAR
Date: 2020.07.06
17:54:18 IST
Reason:
officers for their involvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.
2
2. It is averred in the petition that equal treatment has not been given to
the ordinary lawyers/ litigants. They favour some law firms or Advocates for
reasons best known to them.
3. The petitioner’s first instance is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D. No.10951
of 2020 was filed by him on 16.4.2020. The Registry pointed out three
defects, i.e. (1) Court Fee of Rs.530 was not paid, (2) Documents to be placed
as per index, and (3) Details given in index were incomplete and annexures
were not filed, matter to be rechecked. The petitioner had clarified vide
email dated 18.4.2020 that he had paid the court fee of Rs.730/ and there
was no annexure with the petition. However, the petitioner was forced to pay
more court fees to get the matter listed. Despite the letter of urgency, the
Registry failed to register and list the writ petition. The petitioner requested
the Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association, about not listing the writ
petition. On 27.4.2020, the writ petition was listed before the Court.
4. The second instance given by the petitioner is that a Writ Petition
(Civil) D.No.11236 of 2020 was filed on 12.5.2020, which has not been listed
by the Registry till today. He was informed that there were no defects in the
writ petition, but a copy of the writ petition was missing. After that, no
update was given by the Registry.
5. The third instance given is about Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2020
(Diary No.11552 of 2020) filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2020. The Dealing
3
Assistant pointed out defects on 26.5.2020. The defects were pointed out by
the Dealing Assistant after six days of filing, though the application for
urgency was filed in the petition. The following note was made by the
Registry:
“MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECHECK AS WHOLE INDEX IS
BLANK, PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, VAKALATNAMA, MEMO OF
APPEARANCE AND APPLICATION ALL ARE UNSIGNED AND
DEFICIT COURT FEE ETC.”
The petitioner clarified that the signed documents were already
uploaded. The matter was urgent, and he had uploaded them again along
with signed documents on 26.5.2020. Again the defects were pointed out on
29.5.2020 by the Dealing Assistant to the following effect:
“APPLICATION IS NOT PROPER AS HEADING NOT TALLY
WITH INDEX AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND
PRAYER OF APPLICATION.”
The petitioner cured the defects on 29.5.2020. After that, the Dealing
Assistant did not recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the petitioner made a
call and requested the Branch Officer concerned to direct the Dealing
Assistant to recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the matter was rechecked
and numbered as Diary No.11552 of 2020. The case was verified on
6.6.2020 and listed for 6.7.2020 (computergenerated) which would make
the case infructuous. The application for urgency was not considered. The
petitioner was informed that the case was likely to be listed on 6.7.2020. He
sent an email about the urgency. The Registry was not willing to list the
4
Diary No.11552 of 2020 despite the application for urgency. Hence, the writ
petition has been filed.
6. It is averred that on 23.4.2020, W.P. Diary No.11006 of 2020 titled as
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. UOI was filed at 8.07 p.m. without annexure. The
Registry had chosen not to point out any defects, and a special
supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. The category was not
specified in the notification to be heard during a nationwide lockdown. No
procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearing during the
lockdown. The petitioner made a complaint to SecretaryGeneral against
illegal activities of the Registry but the same is without response.
7. We have heard the petitioner. The present writ petition was initially
listed for 18.6.2020, however on 17.6.2020; a letter was circulated by the
petitioner that he was under the impression that Registry would call the
petitioner to interact with the Registrar in order to appear and argue in
person as per the procedure. Still, it was not intimated to the petitioner that
Registry exempted the petitioner, and there was no need to interact with the
Registrar. The petitioner was out of Delhi due to prearrangement and did
not carry a soft or hard copy of the writ petition to argue the matter. The
petitioner also prayed for time of six weeks to file annexure/ evidence, i.e.,
complaint/ reminder concerning detagging of Writ, delay in checking and
rechecking the matters, application, and reply under RTI regarding de
tagging, proof of excess court fee, etc. to prove his submissions before this
Court. The prayer to adjourn the case was declined, and the case was listed
5
for hearing on 19.6.2020. The petitioner was heard in person. He repeated
the facts about the discrimination being meted out by the Registry of not
listing the cases promptly.
8. We have also perused the files of the cases. Writ Petition (C) D.
No.10951 of 2020 was filed on 17.4.2020 during the nationwide lockdown,
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for the One Nation
One Ration Card Scheme. It was heard and decided on 27.4.2020. The
Union of India was directed to examine whether it was feasible for it to
implement the Scheme at this stage or not and take appropriate decision in
this regard, keeping in view the present circumstances. Accordingly, the
writ petition was disposed of.
9. Although defects were noted, Writ Petition (C) Diary No.10951 of 2020
was listed, heard, and finally decided on 27.4.2020. It was filed on
17.4.2020. 18th and 19th April 2020 were the holidays. There were only five
working days, and during the nationwide lockdown, the court functioning
was minimal. The case was mentioned in the cause list on 26.4.2020 to be
listed on 27.4.2020. Thus, it could not be said that there was delay much
less inordinate one by the officials of the Registry in listing the matter
mentioned above.
10. Concerning the second instance, i.e., Diary No.11236 of 2020, which
was filed by petitioner on 9.5.2020, the Registry has noted several defects on
14.5.2020. The petition is still lying with defects.
6
11. Concerning the third instance i.e., Writ Petition No.522 of 2020 (D.
No.11552 of 2020), the same was filed on 20.5.2020. Again, a defective
petition and defects were pointed out by the Registry on 26.5.2020 that the
whole index was blank. Petition, Affidavit, Vakalatnama, Memo of
Appearance, and Application were all unsigned with a deficit court fee, etc.
The petitioner removed the defects. However, other defects were caused,
such as the application filed was not proper as heading did not tally with the
index, and specific subjects and prayers were not mentioned. The defects
were recured, and the petition was refiled on 3.6.2020. The matter was
processed and listed on 9.6.2020 and was heard and dismissed on
12.6.2020 as other matters on the similar issues were pending as such the
matter was not considered to be necessary. The petitioner has not disclosed
about listing of the case for 12.6.2020, and its decision and averred that the
computergenerated date was 6.7.2020. The Registry did not follow the
computergenerated date, and the case was listed for 12.6.2020 on which it
was dismissed. The petitioner himself was responsible for 1213 days of
delay in removing the defects.
12. As to case of Arnab Goswami, it was listed urgently in view of order of
competent authority. It pertained to liberty and freedom of media.
13. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the ongoing pandemic
caused by COVID19, the Registry of this Court is working with less
strength, and because of the facts described above and circumstances, we
find that there was no justification for the petitioner to allege discrimination
7
visàvis to him and to favour any particular individual. The defects were
there in all the three cases filed by the petitioner.
14. The petitioner has filed this writ application in a hurry. When it was
listed, he circulated a letter to the effect that, as per procedure, he expected
that he would be called for interaction by Registrar of this Court to find out
his fitness whether he could argue a case in person. The petitioner ought to
know that he is an Advocate of this Court and argues the matter in this
Court. As such, it was not necessary to summon him for adjudging his
capability as to whether he could argue the case. Be that as it may.
Circulating such a letter was not appropriate at his stance and why he
doubted his ability to argue. There was no justification to entertain this kind
of apprehension in mind. He ought to have been careful in circulating such
a letter seeking a wholly unjustified adjournment.
15. In the letter circulated by him, it was further stated that he wanted to
collect the evidence and to file it, and for that purpose, he prayed for six
weeks’ time. The conduct indicates that the petitioner was careless and not
serious while he made the allegations. He filed writ application without due
inquiries, and without collecting the requisite material. Such conduct was
least expected of an officer of this Court. Petitioner ought to have been
careful before cast of unnecessary aspersions on the Registry and staff of
this Court.
16. The petition as filed could not be said to be maintainable. The
8
petitioner has impleaded the Secretary General, various Registrars, and
officers of the Registry, SCBA, and Union of India in his writ application. In
contrast, Writ is filed against this Court itself. He ought to have impleaded
the Supreme Court of India in the Writ application through Secretary
General. The omission indicates careless conduct on the part of the
petitioner. The petition was filed in undue haste.
17. We take judicial notice of the fact that a large number of petitions are
filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made to list them and
mention is made that they should be listed urgently. It happens in a large
number of matters, and unnecessary pressure is put upon the Assistants
dealing with the cases. We find due to mistakes/ carelessness when
petitions with defects are filed, it should not be expected that they should be
listed instantly. To err is human and there can be an error on the part of the
Dealing Assistants too. This is too much to expect perfection from them,
particularly when they are working to their maximum capacity even during
the pandemic. The cases are being listed. It could not be said that there
was an inordinate delay in listing the matters in view of the defects. The
Court functioned during the lockdown, the cases were scanned and listed by
the Registry. The staff of this Court is working despite danger to their life
and safety caused due to pandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well
as Officers, have suffered due to Covid19. During such a hard time, it was
not expected of the petitioner who is an officer of this Court to file such a
petition to demoralize the Registry of this Court instead of recognizing the
9
task undertaken by them even during pandemic and lockdown period.
18. We see, in general, it has become a widespread practice to blame the
Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as many petitions are filed
with defects, and defects are not cured for years together. A large number of
such cases were listed in the recent past before the Court for removal of
defects which were pending for years. In such situation, when the pandemic
is going on, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry
of this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system. We take
judicial notice of the fact that such evil is also spreading in the various High
Courts, and Registry is blamed unnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be
remembered by worthy lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system;
they are officers of the Court and are a class apart in the society. Regarding
exemplary behavior from members of noble profession in R. Muthukrishnan
v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Writ
Petition (C) No.612 of 2016 the Court observed concerning the expectation
from gentlemen lawyers, thus:
“23. The role of Lawyer is indispensable in the system of
delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to
maintain the high standard. His duty is to the court to his own client,
to the opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party
counsel also. What may be proper to others in the society, may be
improper for him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class
of the society and a member of the noble profession, the expectation
from him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society.
People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and
the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith
in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put
their signatures wherever asked by a Lawyer. An advocate is supposed
to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice delivered to
his cause.
10
24. The high values of the noble profession have to be protected by all
concerned at all costs and in all the circumstances cannot be forgotten
even by the youngsters in the fight of survival in formative years. The
nobility of legal profession requires an Advocate to remember that he
is not over attached to any case as Advocate does not win or lose a
case, real recipient of justice is behind the curtain, who is at the
receiving end. As a matter of fact, we do not give to a litigant anything
except recognizing his rights. A litigant has a right to be impartially
advised by a lawyer. Advocates are not supposed to be money
guzzlers or ambulance chasers. A Lawyer should not expect any
favour from the Judge and should not involve by any means in
influencing the fair decision-making process. It is his duty to master
the facts and the law and submit the same precisely in the Court, his
duty is not to waste the Courts’ time.
25. It is said by Alexander Cockburn that “the weapon of the advocate
is the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin”. It is the
ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from a Judge. He
must rely on the precedents, read them carefully and avoid corruption
and collusion of any kind, not to make false pleadings and avoid
twisting of facts. In a profession, everything cannot be said to be fair
even in the struggle for survival. The ethical standard is
uncompromisable. Honesty, dedication and hard work is the only
source towards perfection. An Advocate conduct is supposed to be
exemplary. In case an Advocate causes disrepute of the Judges or his
colleagues or involves himself in misconduct, that is the most sinister
and damaging act which can be done to the entire legal system. Such
a person is definitely deadwood and deserves to be chopped off.
xxx
40. The Bar Council has the power to discipline lawyers and maintain
nobility of profession and that power imposes great responsibility.
The Court has the power of contempt and that lethal power too
accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is a weapon like
Brahmasatra to be used sparingly to remain effective. At the same
time, a Judge has to guard the dignity of the Court and take action in
contempt and in case of necessity to impose appropriate exemplary
punishment too. A lawyer is supposed to be governed by professional
ethics, professional etiquette and professional ethos which are a
habitual mode of conduct. He has to perform himself with elegance,
dignity and decency. He has to bear himself at all times and observe
himself in a manner befitting as an officer of the Court. He is a
privileged member of the community and a gentleman. He has to
mainsail with honesty and sail with the oar of hard word, then his boat
is bound to reach to the bank. He has to be honest, courageous,
eloquent, industrious, witty and judgmental.
11
76. Soul searching is absolutely necessary and the blame game and
maligning must stop forthwith. Confidence and reverence and positive
thinking is the only way. It is pious hope that the Bar Council would
improve upon the function of its disciplinary committees so as to
make the system more accountable, publish performance audit on the
disciplinary side of various bar councils. The same should be made
public. The Bar Council of India under its supervisory control can
implement good ideas as always done by it and would not lag behind
in cleaning process so badly required. It is to make the profession
more noble and it is absolutely necessary to remove the black sheeps
from the profession to preserve the rich ideals of Bar and on which it
struggled for the values of freedom. It is basically not for the Court to
control the Bar. It is the statutory duty of Bar to make it more noble
and also to protect the Judges and the legal system, not to destroy the
Bar itself by inaction and the system which is important pillar of
democracy.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 156, it was
observed:
“24.…… In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India1, this Court has
observed that in a petition filed under Article 32 in the form of PIL
attempt of mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court and also
against the other constitutional institutions indulged in by an advocate
in a careless manner, meaningless and as contradictory pleadings,
clumsy allegations, contempt was ordered to be drawn. The Registry
was directed not to entertain any PIL petition of the petitioner in
future.”
25. In R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court2 this Court observed that there
could be ways in which conduct and action of malefactor was
professional misconduct. The purity of the court proceedings has to be
maintained. The Court does not only have the right but also an
obligation to protect itself and can bar the malefactor from appearing
before the Court for an appropriate period of time. There is a duty cast
upon an advocate to protect the dignity of this Court not to scandalize
the very institution as observed in the said decision.”
20. We expect members of the noble fraternity to respect themselves first.
They are an intellectual class of the society. What may be proper for others
may still be improper for them, the expectations from them is to be
1 (1988) 3 SCC 255
2 (2009) 8 SCC 106
12
exemplary to the entire society, then only the dignity of noble profession and
judicial system can be protected. The Registry is nothing but an arm of this
Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is equally respected and
responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcel of the
system, and the system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence. We
also expect from the Registry to work efficiently and effectively. At the same
time, it is expected of the lawyers also to remove the defects effectively and
not to unnecessarily cast aspersions on the system.
21. Thus, we find no ground to entertain the petition. We expect the
petitioner to be more careful and live up to the dignity of the profession
which it enjoys.
22. We dismiss the petition and impose cost of Rs.100/ (Rupees One
Hundred only) on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibility
towards noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such a
petition.
…………………………….J.
[ ARUN MISHRA ]
……………………………J.
[ S. ABDUL NAZEER ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 06, 2020.
Comments