Kerala High Court Details Procedure By Which Third Party Can File An Application For Certified Copies
The Kerala High Court has emphasized that High Court Rules require a third-party who is seeking certified copies of any records of the proceedings other than the judgment or decree need to file a petition stating the reason for which the copy is required. The certified copies for these proceedings can be granted to a third party only on the orders of the Court.A Division Bench of Justice Anil...
The Kerala High Court has emphasized that High Court Rules require a third-party who is seeking certified copies of any records of the proceedings other than the judgment or decree need to file a petition stating the reason for which the copy is required. The certified copies for these proceedings can be granted to a third party only on the orders of the Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon referred to various Supreme Court judgments where the necessity of this procedure was explained. It is to ensure that the copies are sought for bona fide purpose or to effectuate public interest. The Court holds the information as a trustee to the litigants. To prevent the misuse of process of law and information, it is necessary to restrict access to that information.
The Court said that Rule 132 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala lays down that the third-party has to file an affidavit along with a duly verified petition stating the purpose for which the copy is required. They should be drafted and authenticated in the manner provided by the Rules. The Court directed the applicant to re-submit the application after fulfilling necessary requirements.
In the instant case, the Registry had filed an interlocutory application saying that the third-party application had some defects. The 3rd party applicant alleged that the Registry is discriminating between the lawyers. He said that another third-party application filed in another case which also had certain defects were numbered by the Registry. He further argued that since it is just a procedural defect, the Court can overlook it and grant him the relief.
The Court noted that with regards to the other application, Registry had already called for an explanation from the concerned Filing Scrutiny Officer. The Court directed the Registry to ensure proper scrutiny of petitions and applications by Filing Scrutiny Officers especially in applications which are filed as 'Bench Mark' where the copies are served to the counsel just before the matter is taken up for consideration.
Case Title: Suo Moto v Adv. Sojan Pavanios
Case Number: Con. Cas. (Crl.) 6/ 2023