Allegations of partiality and favouristism in Registry: Supreme Court dismisses petition, imposes costs of Rs 100 on petitioner

The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition alleging partiality and favouristism in the listing of matters on the part of the Apex Court Registry (Reepak Kansal vs Secretary General of Supreme Court of India)..While doing so, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 100 on the petitioner for seeking a direction to the Secretary General and the Registrar to not give preferential treatment in listing of cases..The order passed by a two-judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Abdul Nazeer came in plea filed by Advocate Reepak Kansal, who alleged partiality and favouritism in the Supreme Court Registry with respect to listing of matters..Registry is part and parcel of SC, Not Subordinate: SC warns petitioner for making reckless allegations against Registry, Reserves Order.The Bench told the petitioner that being a member of the Bar, he ought not make such allegations against the Registry. It said,."We are imposing a minimum cost of Rs 100 on you."Supreme Court.The court stated that "a large number of petitions" filed are in defect and that unnecessary pressure is put on the assistants dealing with such cases. The top court noting that "to err is human" states that such errors can creep in especially when they are working to their maximum capacity during a pandemic. .We take judicial notice of the fact that a large number of petitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made to list them and mention is made that they should be listed urgently. It happens in a large number of matters, and unnecessary pressure is put upon the Assistants dealing with the cases. We find due to mistakes/ carelessness when petitions with defects are filed, it should not be expected that they should be listed instantly. To err is human and there can be an error on the part of the Dealing Assistants too.reads the judgment delivered.The Supreme Court also notes in it's judgment that "several" officers of the court have suffered due to COVID-19. .The Court functioned during the lockdown, the cases were scanned and listed by the Registry. The staff of this Court is working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers, have suffered due to Covid19reads the verdict.The court has maintained that even in the High Courts, registry and its officers are often blamed for "no good reasons." .The Registry is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is equally respected and responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and mutual reverencejudgment.The Court had reserved its orders in the matter on June 19. Petitioner-in-person Kansal had argued that while the plea filed by Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami was listed in an urgent manner by the Registry, another plea filed by himself days before Goswami's, took much longer to be listed before the Court.The Bench had observed then that this was an unnecessary allegation. It had stated that the defects in Kansal's plea was the reason why the listing was deferred..Registry is part and parcel of SC, Not Subordinate: SC warns petitioner for making reckless allegations against Registry, Reserves Order.The Court had batted for the Registries of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, saying that they were putting in a lot of hard work to ensure a smooth process for the lawyers and litigants. The petitioner should have been responsible before making such allegations, the Court observed..It was observed during the hearing,."You are unnecessarily dragging Arnab Goswami case. Why are you saying such nonsense?"Justice Arun Mishra.During the hearing, the Court had also noted that the Registry is part and parcel of the Supreme Court, and not subordinate to the Judicial side..Kansal's plea concerning "One nation, one ration card" had not been listed by the Registry due to defects in the same. Kansal had compared the listing of his own petition with the one filed by Arnab Goswami challenging the multitude of FIRs registered against him in various states. Goswami's plea was listed within a day's time and taken up for hearing by the Court..Plea in Supreme Court against Secretary General and Registry for allegedly favouring known lawyers and law firms while listing cases.In his plea, Kansal had stated that after he filed a writ petition on April 17, the Registry had pointed out two "false defects". These included non-payment of court fee and failure to file annexures. However, Kansal insists that he had already paid the court fee and that there were no annexures in the petition he had filed. The plea states,"The petitioner was forced to pay more court fee to get listed his matter.Petitioner had also filed application and letter for urgency. Petitioner made several requests to list the matter. But the Registry failed to register and list the said writ petition.".[READ JUDGMENT]