Supreme Court: Advocates are Expected to Live Up to the Dignity of the Court

Must Read

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Follow us

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”.

Court’s Observations

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.

Court’s Decision

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, 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -