Some Explanation Expected From Registry When Case Isn't Listed Despite Specific Direction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 27) observed that the Registry must provide reasons if a case explicitly ordered to be listed by the Court on a particular date is not listed on that date.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih stated this after the counsel for one of the parties in a case related to a property dispute informed that Court that an SLP which was specifically directed to be listed today, was not listed.

“Notwithstanding specific order dated 12th August, 2024, the Registry has not listed SLP (C) Diary No. 25687/2024 today. When there is a specific order of the Court that a particular petition shall be listed, the minimum we expect from the Registry is that there is some explanation placed on record why order of this Court is not complied with. The Registrar (Judicial Listing) to take a note of this default”, the Court stated in its order, and directed that the matter be listed on September 6, 2024.

In a related issue, another bench of the Court on last week warned the Registry of serious consequences if errors were found in the future. In that case, a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra had found that the paper book of an SLP did not contain a previous order from August last year and lacked the necessary office reports.

The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the registry's failure to list cases despite judicial orders in various previous instances.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol on May 6 sought an explanation from its Registrar (Judicial) against the listing of the case without following the proper procedure.

In January this year, a bench of Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted with dismay that a civil appeal ought to have been listed on a Thursday, as directed, instead of Friday when it was listed.

In another case, Justice Oka last year pulled up the registry for shifting the blame on court masters for non-compliance with the court's orders, calling it a 'very sorry state of affairs'.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 31424/2024

Case Title – Sukhraj Labh Singh v. Zainab Rafiullah Shaikh & Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 614