New Delhi: The Supreme Court on January 23 (Tuesday) brought to light the apparent failure of the court’s registry to list a case concerning Adani Power.
According to Bar and Bench, senior advocate Dushyant Dave questioned whether the government had interfered in this case. He termed the “failure” of the court’s registry to list it as “very disturbing”.
The “registry” refers to the administrative office or department responsible for managing and maintaining records, schedules, and other administrative tasks related to court cases. In the Supreme Court of India, the registry plays a crucial role in handling the paperwork, scheduling hearings, and ensuring the overall administrative efficiency of the court.
The registry is typically composed of court officers and administrative staff responsible for processing and managing case files, maintaining court records, scheduling hearings, and implementing the decisions and orders of the court. The registrar of the Supreme Court heads the registry, which is answerable to the Chief Justice of India as he is the master of the roster. The CJI, as “master of the roster”, can assign cases to other judges. The registry then makes allocations based on the CJI’s orders.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave had brought to light the non-listing of the Adani Power case in the Supreme Court. This had triggered wider concern and raised questions on the transparency and accountability of the court’s registry.
The present case involves serious allegations from Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited concerning procedural irregularities and the possible re-evaluation of a 2020 judgment without following proper legal procedures. This concern centres around the improper listing of an application by Adani Power, which, according to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, seeks a review of the 2020 judgment after a considerable lapse of more than two years without filing a formal review petition.
The controversy deepened as Dave said that instructions were given to avoid listing the case. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar assured Dave they would investigate the matter. The case was listed for hearing on January 24 (Wednesday) on a priority basis.
About fairness and transparency
The Supreme Court’s response to these concerns could be a crucial determinant to ensure a fair, transparent and swift resolution for the parties involved. Analysts say it is imperative to uphold public trust in the judicial system. The outcome of the Adani Power case will set a precedent for future proceedings and significantly influence public perception of the judiciary’s integrity.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave’s concerns over potential government interference and failing to list the case underscore broader issues with the Supreme Court’s registry. His open letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud in December 2023 highlighted concern over where he stated, “But it would not be out of place to mention that these matters include some sensitive matters involving human rights, Freedom of Speech, Democracy, and Functioning of Statutory and Constitutional Institutions.”
The open letter urged Chief Justice Chandrachud to take corrective measures promptly and address the misgivings of the legal community. Dave pointed out that the recent improprieties risk tarnishing the institution’s respect and urged immediate action to maintain the Supreme Court’s credibility under the Chief Justice’s leadership.
According to Dave, the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, published by the Supreme Court in 2017, clearly outlines that a case should be listed before the junior judge only if the senior judge is unavailable. However, the alleged violation of this practice, as pointed out by Dave and if true, raises concerns about the adherence to established rules within the Supreme Court.
In the letter, Dave highlighted the role of CJI as the ‘master of the roster’. This running issue has plagued the system well before Justice D Y Chandrachud’s tenure. Notably, the handbook grants the CJI the authority to list cases in the event of the non-availability of a single judge or members of the bench due to retirement or other reasons. Such cases are typically listed per subject category through computer allocation unless otherwise ordered by the CJI. Importantly, a specific note in the handbook affirms the CJI’s power to allocate or assign any appeal, cause, or matter to any judge or court judges, granting extraordinary flexibility in case distribution.
Dave contends that while the CJI holds power to allocate cases, this authority is contingent on adherence to established practices and only applicable when the coram as per roster is unavailable. He argued that exercising this power to remove a case from an available coram and place it before another is a deviation from the established norms of the top court. Expressing regrets for resorting to an open letter, Dave had noted the lack of response to emails raising grievances about the issue, sent in by lawyers to the registrar.
Instances detailed in Dave’s letter point to a significant deviation from customary procedures within the Supreme Court. As his letter highlighted, the abrupt transfer of cases between different benches signifies a departure from the established norms of the apex court. This departure becomes even more evident when considering an analysis conducted by Article 14, which brings to light what appears to be a pattern over a four-month period wherein politically sensitive cases like JNU scholar Umar Khalid’s bail plea and challenges to UAPA were redirected to a particular bench. Such practices must be compatible with the established rules and procedures of the Supreme Court, prompting questions about the adherence to fair and transparent judicial processes in handling these cases.
Vishal Vaibhav Singh is a student at the National Law University, Odisha and an aspiring litigator. He is an intern with The Wire.