Registry officers must know Supreme Court Rules like the back of one's hand: Supreme Court

Registry officers must know the Supreme Court Rules like the back of one's hand, the Supreme Court recently observed while dealing with certain applications for condonation of delay in making deposit and restoration of the application for exemption from surrendering [Mahavir Arya v State Gov. NCT of Delhi].

. Single-judge Justice PS Narasimha ordered that there is no requirement under the Supreme Court Rules to file an application seeking exemption from surrendering when the order under challenge before the Court is only one of cancellation of bail.

As per the Supreme Court Rules, such a requirement exists only for criminal appeals and special leave petitions where the petitioner is ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment'.

These observations came after the Court was informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the registry insists on filing an application seeking exemption from surrendering even when the order under challenge before the Court is one of cancellation of bail.

Such applications need to be filed only for criminal appeals or special leave petitions where the petitioner is ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment’, Justice Narasimha said.

But the Court was told by some lawyers that they find it prudent to file such applications instead of arguing unsuccessfully with the registry on the same.

"This is completely unacceptable. The officers of the Registry must know the Supreme Court Rules like the back of ones hand. Order XXII Rule 5, applies only to cases where the petitioner is ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment’ and it cannot be confused with simple orders of cancellation of bail," Court noted in its order.

. The Court found it disturbing that a large number of such applications for exemptions are routinely filed when there is no need to adopt such a procedure at all. It was observed that this practice has serious consequences of increasing the burden on lawyers, judges and even the registry. This is apart from loss of respect for law, the Court said.

. At this juncture, advocate Raghenth Basant brought to the notice of the Court successive orders passed by the Supreme Court holding that applications for surrender were wrongly filed and that there was no need to insist on filing of such applications.

In this regard, the Supreme Court adverted to Kapur Singh Vs. State of Haryana and several other judgments wherein it had held that there was no requirement to file such applications. The officers could have at least taken note of the judicial orders, Court said.

. In view of the above, the Court directed Registrar (Judicial) to issue formal instructions to the concerned filing, scrutiny and numbering Sections with respect to matters in which Order XX, Rule 3 and Order XXII, Rule 5 will apply. Further, it was instructed not to insist on filing such applications in other cases.

. Coming to the case at hand, the Court noted that the petitioner was arrested for cheating under Section 420 of IPC. He was granted bail by the High Court subject to payment of an amount. Upon his failure to pay the amount, the High Court recalled its order granting bail and ordered the petitioner to surrender. An application to recall that order came to be dismissed which came to be challenged in before the Supreme Court through the instant petition.

"A Special Leave Petition was filed against the above referred order. Along with it an application for exemption from surrendering is also filed. The advocate should have known that such an application was totally unnecessary," the Court noted.

Despite the same, the chamber judge had issued notice and asked the petitioner to remit the balance amount within four weeks failing which the application for surrendering will be dismissed without reference to the Court.

Since the amount was not deposited, it was assumed that the application stood dismissed without reference to the Court.

The present application was, therefore, filed for restoration of the same.

"All this happened when there is no mandate in law to seek an exemption from surrendering at all. The Constitutional remedy under Article 136 is available to the petitioner without surrendering as this is not a case where the accused is ‘sentenced’," the Court underscored.

Since there was never a need to file the application for exemption from surrendering, the Court recalled the order directing dismissal of the application for exemption from surrendering.

It then proceeded to direct the case to be listed before the Regular Bench for admission and disposal.

. [Read Order]

Registry officers must know Supreme Court Rules like the back of one's hand: Supreme Court

Zeb Hasan

Related Stories