Registry Cannot Refuse Listing Of Case Citing Procedural Defects When There Is A Judicial Order To List: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 20) held that the Registry cannot defy specific order of the Court and refuse to list a case on the ground of procedural non-compliance.

“When there is order of the court directing listing of the cases specifically assigned to this bench the registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the case on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a batch of petitions related to the 2022 murder of RSS leader Srinivasan in Kerala.

The batch includes bail petitions by nine accused individuals who were denied bail by the Kerala High Court and appeals by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail granted to 17 others.

These petitions arose from the Kerala High Court's June 25 judgment, which had granted bail to 17 of the 26 accused in the case while rejecting the pleas of nine others.

Justice Oka remarked, “Now all the cases are listed. By same order certain persons have been granted bail, other have been denied bail, with no reasons recorded. So we will decide them all here. We have been struggling to get them listed. Now we will hear all the cases together. Either way prima facie we feel that the reasons are not adequate. So instead of sending them back we will decide.”

Court's Order on Registry's Role

The Supreme Court in its order noted that six petitions were not getting listed despite its earlier directions. The Registry refused to list the cases due to procedural non-compliance relying on Rule 2 of Order 15 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Under Rule 2 of Order 15, a petitioner is required to serve a notice of caveat along with a copy of the petition. Rule 2 of Order 15 states:

• A caveator is entitled to receive notice of the lodging of a petition and a copy of the petition upon lodging a caveat.
• Petitioners must serve the caveat notice and supporting documents to the caveator.

In this case, the advocates for the petitioners had not provided proof of service of notice to the caveator.

The Bench emphasized that no rule under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, prohibits listing of a case solely due to non-compliance with Rule 2 of Order 15. The Court clarified that in urgent cases, the Registry must list the matter while noting procedural lapses in the office report.

“We do not find any rule in the Supreme Court Rules 2013 which records that notwithstanding failure to comply with requirement of Rule 2 of Order 15 a case cannot be listed before the court. There may be cases of extreme urgency. In such cases the registry cannot rely upon Rule 2 of Order 15 and refuse to list the case”, the Court observed.

The order also referred to Section 148A of the CPC, highlighting that a caveator is entitled to a hearing when interim relief is considered, but does not have the right to be heard on admission of an appeal or grant of leave in a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

“Moreover, apart from the obligation on the petitioner or appellant, under section 148A(3) of the CPC even the court is under an obligation to issue notice of the application for interim relief on the caveator after it is noticed that there is a caveat filed. Therefore, when there is a direction of the court to list SLP or appeal, notwithstanding noncompliance with Rule 2 of Order 15 of the Rules, Registry can always list a case before the court with office report regarding failure of the petitioner/appellant to comply with Rule 2 of Order 15 of the Rules”, the Court held.

The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to take note of the order. The matters are now scheduled for hearing on January 17, 2025.

Kerala High Court's Impugned Judgment

The SLPs challenge the Kerala High Court's judgment in criminal appeals filed by 26 members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) who are accused in the murder of Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad, Kerala, on April 16, 2022. The court granted bail to 17 accused, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them were prima facie true under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

The High Court, however, denied bail to nine accused after determining that the allegations against them met the threshold of “prima facie true” under the UAPA. It observed that accusations supported by material evidence crossed the threshold of “general allegations” and indicated complicity in the offenses.

The case was initially investigated by the local police, which charged 44 individuals in connection with Srinivasan's murder. The investigation was later taken over by the NIA, which filed an FIR under Sections 120B and 153A of the IPC, read with Sections 13, 18, 18B, 38, and 39 of the UAPA. The NIA alleged that the murder was part of a larger conspiracy to instigate and radicalize individuals for terrorist activities in Kerala.

The High Court, while granting bail to 17 accused, cautioned against confirmation bias based on ideological narratives, emphasizing the judiciary's responsibility to safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 9623/2024

Case Title – Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India with connected cases