Registrar Must Ensure Assistants Work Diligently : Supreme Court Warns Registry Of Serious Consequences For Errors

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said this after observing on the previous date that the paper book of the SLP did not contain a previous order from August last year, and the case file did not contain the office report. The court on Tuesday further highlighted the lack of an official report on record supporting the Registry's conclusion that the case was not time barred.

“The Registrar shall ensure that the dealing assistants and senior court assistants diligently perform their work. Any recurrence of error or remissness of the nature that we have noticed, if brought to our notice once again, may expose them to serious consequences”, the Court said.

The petitioner, a public servant, was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellate court had dismissed his appeal against conviction. Thus, he filed the present petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner, who is over 70 years old and facing medical conditions, was on bail during the trial and appeal process.

The Supreme Court had granted him exemption from surrendering till the next date by an order dated August 28, 2023. On the next date (July 29, 2024), the Supreme Court noted that the order dated August 28, 2023 was not attached in the SLP paper book.

The Court further highlighted that the SLP was originally listed under Diary No. 31838 of 2023, but the judges were informed via a note to their residential offices that the case had been assigned a regular number, SLP (Crl.) No. 10022/2024. The Court also highlighted the absence of an Office Report in the case file and directed the Registry to submit report clarifying its position.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court referred to a report filed by the Registrar (Judicial Listing) on August 17, 2024, pursuant to the Court's direction on July 29, 2024. After reviewing the report, the Court emphasized the need for diligent performance by the dealing assistants and senior court assistants.

The Court further noted that although page 'A-5' of the SLP suggested that it was time-barred and an application for condonation of delay had been filed, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the Registry had indicated that the application for condonation was redundant, as the SLP was filed within the limitation period. The court was informed that this opinion was based on the fact that the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the impugned judgment had been excluded from the limitation period calculation.

However, the Supreme Court highlighted that there was no official report on record supporting this conclusion. Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to produce the report that led to the opinion that the SLP was filed within the permissible time frame. The Court ordered the Registry to submit this report within a week and scheduled the SLP after ten days.

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10022/2024

Case Title – Vairamuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 596