Libertatem Magazine

Plea in Supreme Court: Registry’s Pick & Choose Policy for Listing Is Discriminatory

Contents of this Page

On 16th June 2020, a plea was filed in SC seeking directions for fair chances to get Registry of the Apex Court. It highlighted the partiality that comes along with the “pick and choose” policy.

Brief Facts of the Case

The writ petition was filed before the SC under Article 32 of the Constitution. Advocate Reepak Kansal pleaded the Apex Court for the issuance of the writ of mandamus. He sought the Court to direct the respondents not to discriminate or humiliate the litigants. Thus, providing equal treatment to all litigants by avoiding Pick and Choose Policy.

Petitioner’s Submission

The petition stated that some law firms or advocates get preference by the Registry. Advocate Kansul further highlighted a personal experience wherein his letters of “urgency” fell on deaf ears. The Registry failed to list his case. The Petitioner sought that there is no grievance redressal mechanism. Hence, the complaints against the Registry go unheard. They highlighted an instance to prove their point where the listing of Arnab Goswami’s plea was approved within an hour.

The Petitioner stated that as of now, there is no procedure for filing of cases on an urgent basis. Furthermore, it draws the attention of the Court towards the necessity of an immediate listing of the cases during the nation lockdown.

The Petitioner is also a member of SCBA. He had requested to Secretary /executive members of SCBA to look into the matter and take necessary action.

Seeing partiality in the part of Registry, the SCBA drafted a Resolution. It puts light on the problems faced by the members of the bar due to a lack of proper help from the Registry during the lockdown.

Petitioner’s Prayer

The Petitioner prayed to the officials to urgently look into the matter of listing of the cases. The Petitioner also prayed to issue the appropriate writ or direction to the respondents in the following cases:-

  • The respondents should not point out unnecessary defects in cases of ordinary advocates.
  • They must refund the excess court fees and other charges.
  • They must take strict actions against list clearing and “bench hunting”. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. 

About the Author