SC dismisses plea alleging adoption of ‘pick and choose’ policy by court’s registry in listing matters

Supreme Court has dismissed a petition alleging adoption of a "pick and choose" policy by its Registry and of routinely giving preference to influential advocates in listings, legal news website LiveLaw.in has reported.

The Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra dismissed the petition filed by a lawyer, Reepak Kansal, and imposed a fine of ₹100 on him for filing the plea in which he had sought seeking a direction to its Secretary General & Registrar/officers in "not to give preferences to cases filed by influential lawyers/petitioners".

"We are imposing a minimum cost of Rs 100 on you," said the court.

In his petition, Kansal had alleged that the section officers and/or Registry of Supreme Court routinely gives preferences to some law firms and influential advocates for reasons "best known to them".

The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah had heard this petition on 19th June. It took serious objections to the allegations raised by Kansal, who complained that the SC Registry was showing discrimination and undue preferences in the matter of listing of all cases.

"How can you compare your Petition on One Nation One Ration Card to the plea of Arnab Goswami? What was the urgency? Why are you saying nonsensical things? All members of registry work day and night to make your life easier. You are demoralising them. How can you say such things?" the bench made these oral observations during the hearing.

Kansal stated that the section officers and/or Registry of Supreme Court routinely gave preferences to some law firms and influential advocates for reasons "best known to them".

"This is discrimination and against equal opportunity to get justice in this Hon'ble Court", he states.

"Because, the Respondent no. 2/ Filing Section take several days to check / point out the defects if, it is filed by an ordinary petitioner or lawyers and list the cases within few minutes by ignoring the defects / procedure if, it is filed by any influential lawyer or petitioner"

The plea further contended, "There is no procedure followed by the Registry i.e. filing application for urgent hearing or letter etc which was necessary for the urgent listing of the cases during nation lock down."

The plea also contended that seeing this "discriminatory" practice adopted by the Registry and after failing to get his petition listed despite a letter of urgency on record annexed with the petition, Kansal complained to Secretary General of the top court via email. No response was given by the respondents, he states.