words per minute
29
manojkumar1399447
00:00
Speed
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.541 OF 2020
REEPAK KANSAL ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
SECRETARYGENERAL,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed
the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against various
officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been
made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed
by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. Prayer has been made to
direct the respondents to give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary
lawyers/ petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund the
excess court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without order or
direction of the Court with other cases. A prayer has also been made to
direct the Secretary General of this Court to take action against the erring
officers for their involvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.
2
2. It is averred in the petition that equal treatment has not been given to
the ordinary lawyers/ litigants. They favour some law firms or Advocates for
reasons best known to them.
3. The petitioner's first instance is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D. No.10951
of 2020 was filed by him on 16.4.2020. The Registry pointed out three
defects, i.e. (1) Court Fee of Rs.530 was not paid, (2) Documents to be placed
as per index, and (3) Details given in index were incomplete and annexures
were not filed, matter to be rechecked. The petitioner had clarified vide
email dated 18.4.2020 that he had paid the court fee of Rs.730/ and there
was no annexure with the petition. However, the petitioner was forced to pay
more court fees to get the matter listed. Despite the letter of urgency, the
Registry failed to register and list the writ petition. The petitioner requested
the Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association, about not listing the writ
petition. On 27.4.2020, the writ petition was listed before the Court.
4. The second instance given by the petitioner is that a Writ Petition
(Civil) D.No.11236 of 2020 was filed on 12.5.2020, which has not been listed
by the Registry till today. He was informed that there were no defects in the
writ petition, but a copy of the writ petition was missing. After that, no
update was given by the Registry.
5. The third instance given is about Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2020
(Diary No.11552 of 2020) filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2020. The Dealing
3
Assistant pointed out defects on 26.5.2020. The defects were pointed out by
the Dealing Assistant after six days of filing, though the application for
urgency was filed in the petition. The following note was made by the
Registry:
“MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECHECK AS WHOLE INDEX IS
BLANK, PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, VAKALATNAMA, MEMO OF
APPEARANCE AND APPLICATION ALL ARE UNSIGNED AND