23 Years Delay In Listing A Habeas Corpus Petition: Calcutta High Court Moots Proceedings For Misconduct Against Errant Officers
We cannot afford stacking of files without the same being listed in spite of judicial orders: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure over its Registry for failure to list a habeas corpus petition filed in the year 1997, for as many as 23 years, despite explicit directions to list the matter after three months. Taken aback by such negligence, a Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee suggested that in...
The Calcutta High Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure over its Registry for failure to list a habeas corpus petition filed in the year 1997, for as many as 23 years, despite explicit directions to list the matter after three months.
Taken aback by such negligence, a Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee suggested that in such cases, proceedings for misconduct should be initiated against errant officers.
"We are in a judicial system. We cannot afford stacking of files without the same being listed in spite of judicial orders. When matters are not listed by the office of the High Court in spite of judicial orders, it may, at least in certain situations, be appropriate that the Courts should consider initiating action for misconduct against the officers concerned for having deflected the course of justice by disobeying judicial orders for posting a case," it observed.
The case pertained to alleged failure of a hospital to hand over a child to his mother. It was first listed on December 22, 1997, whereby a direction was made to the Director General of Police to register a FIR and launch an investigation.
The Division Bench noted that even though different directions were issued by a Bench headed by the then Chief Justice with the further order to the Registry to list the matter after three months, "it is a matter of great misfortune that this matter is listed today after 23 years of hibernation of this file in the cupboard of the High Court."
It further expressed displeasure that such a situation occurred in a case seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus (thereby affecting personal liberty of an individual).
Nevertheless, the case was disposed of with an observation that no further order is required to be passed except to close the matter.
In an important decision concerning personal liberty, the Supreme Court had in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India, directed that ordinarily, all Courts shall dispose of Bail applications within one week. It had also issued significant directions to tackle the pendency of cases in criminal courts.
Thereafter, on several occasions, the Court has made observations against delay in adjudication. In an application seeking suspension of sentence (in a criminal appeal) pending in Orissa HC since 2011, the Top Court last year held that "Delay in disposing of applications for bail and suspension of sentence in pending criminal appeals would be a travesty of justice."
Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High directed the State Government to pay compensation to a bail applicant, who had been languishing in jail for over a year, without any progress in trial which was completely attributable to the state Police. It observed that the Government cannot take the defence of sovereign immunity in cases of violation of Fundamental Rights of it citizens.
Note: In that case however, the delay was on account of the Government. The case at hand is slightly different inasmuch as the delay occurred due to failure of the Registry to list the case.
Case Title: Kanchan Tanti v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Read Order