Supreme Court of India
Reepak Kansal vs Secretary General Supreme Court … on 6 July, 2020Author: Arun Mishra

Bench: Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha










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
Date: 2020.07.06
17:54:18 IST

officers for their involvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.

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

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



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:


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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.


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.

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
(emphasis supplied)

19. In Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 156, it was


“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

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

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




JULY 06, 2020.


Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.