A division bench comprised of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer heard the case of Reepak Kansal v. The Secretary, Supreme Court of India. The Court stated that the Court staff are working despite the dangers posed by the pandemic. There should be no unnecessary aspersions upon the judicial system from lawyers.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He accused the registry on the ground that it depicts prejudice towards the influential advocates and law firms. He claimed about the registry on three different incidents. However, the registry did not list any of his petitions despite the application of urgency. This claim was a product of many factors, including the uncleared defects in the petition. He also stated that the registry listed the case of Arnab Goswami without following the procedures. Moreover, in the case of Goswami, the defects were not evident, and the registry listed the case on the same day of filing.
Identification of the Three Instances
The Court identified that in all the three instances, the petitions were delayed due to time taken to clear the defects. The insights into the instances are as follows:
About the first instance, the Court noted that it prayed for the implementation of ‘One Nation One Ration Card’ scheme. It was filed on 17 April and the next two days were holidays. Despite the minimal functioning of the Court (5 days a week), the case was disposed of on the 27 of April. In the second instance by the petitioner, the Court noted that the case was till date lying with uncured defects. For the third instance, the Court stated that the petitioner delayed the matter by 12 days for clearing the defects.
Subsequently, the Court deliberated Arnab Goswami’s case. About Arnab’s case, the Court stated that it pertained to the freedom of media. The Court stated that the urgency was due to the ‘order of a competent authority’. The Court also stated that “when petitions with defects are filed, it cannot be expected to get listed”.
In the current case, the Court observed that the petitioner has doubted his ability to argue this case. For the same, he had expected a meeting with the Registrar of the Supreme Court. However, the bench condemned this behaviour. The Court observed that the petitioner was a Supreme Court advocate and such apprehension is not justified. It also noted that the petitioner requested for six weeks for filing evidence. Thus, the petitioner filed the petition without collecting the required materials. Further, the Court noted that there is a default in the filing of the case. Hence, it is not maintainable. This was owing to the incorrect case title. As a result, it showed the careless omission on the petitioner’s part. It further elaborated on the conduct of an advocate as part of the judicial system.
The Court dismissed the petition. The Court further imposed a cost of Rs. 100 on the petitioner. It imposed the fine to remind the petitioner of his responsibility as an advocate.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & 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.