The Supreme Court recently voiced strong criticism against its registry for failing to list cases as directed by judicial orders, underscoring the unacceptable nature of such defiance. This rebuke arose during proceedings related to six pleas involving the Hashimpura massacre, which had not been listed despite clear directives from the Court.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that the registry cannot bypass judicial instructions by citing procedural lapses, such as the failure to serve case copies to caveators. “When the Court orders specific listing of cases, the registry cannot disregard those instructions due to procedural non-compliance,” the bench asserted in its December 20 ruling.
The registry had justified its inaction by invoking Rule 2 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which requires petitioners to serve copies of their pleas to caveators. However, the bench clarified that no rule prohibits listing cases solely due to such procedural issues, especially when urgency demands immediate judicial attention.
“There may be cases of extreme urgency where procedural requirements cannot override the need for timely listing. The registry must honor judicial orders, even if procedural compliance is pending,” the Court stated, highlighting the importance of balancing procedural diligence with judicial efficiency.
The Court further explained that under Section 148A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a caveator is entitled to notice when interim relief is sought. However, this right does not extend to being heard on the grant of leave or the admission of appeals.
The bench directed the registry to ensure all pending cases are listed by January 17, 2025, and made it clear that future failures to comply with judicial orders would not be tolerated. While no disciplinary action was ordered against registry officials in this instance, the Court expressed hope that such lapses would not recur.
The case also featured notable legal representation, with appearances from senior legal practitioners on both sides of the matter, underscoring the significance of the issues at hand.
