The Supreme Court has introduced a new directive regarding Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), effective from August 20. The directive mandates that any SLP seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of an impugned order must include a receipt from the High Court confirming the application for the certified copy.
Additionally, the application must affirm that it has not expired due to any reason and include an undertaking from the applicant to submit the certified copy promptly.
“If any SLP, whether arising from civil or criminal proceedings, includes a request for exemption from filing the certified copy of the judgment or order under challenge, the application must annex the receipt from the High Court’s relevant section acknowledging the request for the certified copy,” stated Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The directive also requires a declaration that the application for the certified copy is still valid and an undertaking to submit the certified copy as soon as it is available.
This new requirement is based on the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which stipulate that a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from must accompany SLPs. Rule 1 (19) of Order V allows the Registrar to handle such exemption applications, provided they are presented to the Court along with the SLP.
The Court expressed disappointment that, despite clear provisions, the requirement for filing certified copies is often ignored. “We are pained to note that despite specific provisions in the 2013 Rules requiring an SLP to be accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order, such provisions are observed more in the breach. This situation should not be allowed to persist; so long as the rules exist, there has to be substantial compliance,” the Court stated.
This directive arose from an unusual case where the petitioners falsely claimed that the High Court failed to provide a certified copy of an impugned order, despite their application. It was revealed that no such application had been made prior to filing the SLP. Although the Court refrained from initiating criminal proceedings due to a fervent plea by the petitioners’ Senior Counsel, it dismissed the SLP.
The Court criticized the leniency often shown in such cases, which has led to a belief among litigants that false statements can go unpunished. “This mild approach of the Court has generated a sense of belief among litigants that they can get away scot-free even by making statements which are far from the truth. It is high time that some sense of discipline is instilled so that the Court is not taken for a ride,” the Court remarked.
The directive, intended to enforce compliance and prevent misuse, was ordered to be notified through a Circular by the Court’s Secretary-General.
