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

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

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

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -