REEPAK KANSAL versus SECRETARY GENERAL, & ORS. on 6 July 2020

[2020] 4 S.C.R. 459

REEPAK KANSAL

v.

SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2020)

JULY 06, 2020

[ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Constitution of India – Art. 32 – The petitioner, an advocate,filed a writ petition during the pandemic of Covid-19 against thevarious officers of the Registry of the Supreme Court and Union ofIndia seeking direction in the nature of mandamus directing therespondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influentiallawyers/ petitioners, law firms etc. – Direction was also sought togive equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund theexcess Court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases withoutorder or direction of the Court with other cases – Held: The petitionas filed could not be said to be maintainable – The Petitioner hasimpleaded the Secretary General, various Registrars and Officersof the Registry, SCBA and Union of India – In contrast, writ is filedagainst the Supreme Court itself – He ought to have impleaded theSupreme Court of India in the Writ application through SecretaryGeneral – The omission indicates careless conduct on the part ofthe petitioner – The petition was filed in undue haste – The SupremeCourt takes judicial notice of the fact that a large number ofpetitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is madeto list them and mention is made that they should be listed urgently– It happens in large number of matters and unnecessary pressureis put upon the Assistants dealing with the cases – This is too muchto expect perfection from them, particularly when they are workingto their maximum capacity even during the pandemic – The staff isworking despite danger to their life and safety caused due topandemic and several of the dealing staff, as well as officers, havesuffered due to Covid-19 – In general, it has become a widespreadpractice to blame the Registry for no good reasons – To err is human,as many petitions are filed with defects and defects are not curedfor years together – In such situation when the pandemic is going

459

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

Aon, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registryof the Supreme Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system– There are no ground to entertain the petition – Thus, the petitionis dismissed.

Advocate – Expectations from Advocates and the role of theBRegistry – Held: The members of the noble fraternity are expectedto respect themselves first – They are an intellectual class of thesociety – what may be proper for others may still be improper forthem, the expectations from them is to be exemplary to the entiresociety, then only the dignity of noble profession and judicial canbe protected – The Registry is nothing but an arm of the SupremeCcourt and an extention of its dignity – Bar is equally respected andresponsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcelof the system and the system has to work in tandem and mutualreverence.

Dismissing the Writ Petition, the CourtD

HELD : 1. The petition as filed could not be said to bemaintainable. The petitioner has impleaded the SecretaryGeneral, various Registrars, and officers of the Registry, SCBA,and Union of India in his writ application. In contrast, Writ is filedagainst this Court itself. He ought to have impleaded the SupremeECourt of India in the Writ application through Secretary-General.The omission indicates careless conduct on the part ofthe petitioner. The petition was filed in undue haste. [Para 16][466-D]

Conclusion

2. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a largeFnumber of petitions are filed which are defective; still, theinsistence is made to list them and mention is made that theyshould be listed urgently. It happens in a large number of matters,and unnecessary pressure is put upon the Assistants dealing withthe cases. When petitions with defects are filed, it should not beGexpected that they should be listed instantly. To err is humanand there can be an error on the part of the Dealing Assistantstoo. This is too much to expect perfection from them, particularlywhen they are working to their maximum capacity even duringthe pandemic. The cases are being listed. It could not be saidthat there was an inordinate delay in listing the matters in view ofH

the defects. The Court functioned during the lockdown, the caseswere scanned and listed by the Registry. The staff of this Courtis working despite danger to their life and safety caused due topandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers,have suffered due to Covid-19. During such a hard time, it wasnot expected of the petitioner who is an officer of this Court tofile such a petition to demoralize the Registry of this Court insteadof recognizing the task undertaken by them even during pandemicand lockdown period. [Para 17][466-E-H]

3. In general, it has become a widespread practice to blamethe Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as manypetitions are filed with defects, and defects are not cured for yearstogether. A large number of such cases were listed in the recentpast before the Court for removal of defects which were pendingfor years. In such situation, when the pandemic is going on,baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registryof this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system. ThisCourt takes judicial notice of the fact that such evil is alsospreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamedunnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be remembered byworthy lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; theyare officers of the Court and are a class apart in the society. [Para18][467-A-C]

4. This Court expects members of the noble fraternity torespect themselves first. They are an intellectual class of thesociety. What may be proper for others may still be improper forthem, the expectations from them is to be exemplary to the entiresociety, then only the dignity of noble profession and judicialsystem can be protected. The Registry is nothing but an arm ofthis Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is equally respectedand responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part andparcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem andmutual reverence. It is also expected from the Registry to workefficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of thelawyers also to remove the defects effectively and not tounnecessarily cast aspersions on the system. [Para 20][470-A-C]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.541 of 2020.

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India Tushar Mehta, SG, Piyush Beriwal, Kanu Aggarwal, Arvind Kr.Sharma and B.V. Balram Das, Advs. for Respondents.B

Petitioner-in-person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner,who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, hasCfiled the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India againstvarious officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India.Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directionin the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to givepreference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms,Detc. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give equaltreatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/ petitioners and not topoint out unnecessary defects, refund the excess court fee and othercharges, and not to tag the cases without order or direction of the Courtwith other cases. A prayer has also been made to direct the SecretaryGeneral of this Court to take action against the erring officers for theirEinvolvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.

2. It is averred in the petition that equal treatment has not beengiven to the ordinary lawyers/ litigants. They favour some law firms orAdvocates for reasons best known to them.F3. The petitioner’s first instance is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D.

F3. 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 pointedout 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 indexwere incomplete and annexures were not filed, matter to be rechecked.The petitioner had clarified vide email dated 18.4.2020 that he had paidGthe 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 thematter listed. Despite the letter of urgency, the Registry failed to registerand list the writ petition. The petitioner requested the Secretary, SupremeCourt Bar Association, about not listing the writ petition. On 27.4.2020,Hthe 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 beenlisted by the Registry till today. He was informed that there were nodefects 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 of2020 (Diary No.11552 of 2020) filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2020.The Dealing Assistant pointed out defects on 26.5.2020. The defectswere pointed out by the Dealing Assistant after six days of filing, thoughthe application for urgency was filed in the petition. The following notewas made by the Registry:

“MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECHECK AS WHOLE INDEXIS BLANK, PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, VAKALATNAMA,MEMO OF APPEARANCE AND APPLICATION ALL AREUNSIGNED AND DEFICIT COURT FEE ETC.”

The petitioner clarified that the signed documents were alreadyuploaded. The matter was urgent, and he had uploaded them again alongwith signed documents on 26.5.2020. Again the defects were pointedout on 29.5.2020 by the Dealing Assistant to the following effect:

“APPLICATION IS NOT PROPER AS HEADING NOTTALLY WITH INDEX AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THESUBJECT AND PRAYER OF APPLICATION.”

The petitioner cured the defects on 29.5.2020. After that, theDealing Assistant did not recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the petitionermade a call and requested the Branch Officer concerned to direct theDealing Assistant to recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the matter wasrechecked and numbered as Diary No.11552 of 2020.The case wasverified on 6.6.2020 and listed for 6.7.2020 (computer-generated) whichwould make the case infructuous. The application for urgency was notconsidered. The petitioner was informed that the case was likely to belisted on 6.7.2020. He sent an email about the urgency. The Registrywas not willing to list the Diary No.11552 of 2020 despite the applicationfor urgency. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

6. It is averred that on 23.4.2020, W.P. Diary No.11006 of 2020titled as Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. UOI was filed at 8.07 p.m. withoutannexure. The Registry had chosen not to point out any defects, and aspecial supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. The category A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awas not specified in the notification to be heard during a nationwidelockdown. No procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearingduring the lockdown. The petitioner made a complaint to Secretary-General against illegal activities of the Registry but the same is withoutresponse.

B7. We have heard the petitioner. The present writ petition wasinitially listed for 18.6.2020, however on 17.6.2020; a letter was circulatedby the petitioner that he was under the impression that Registry wouldcall the petitioner to interact with the Registrar in order to appear andargue in person as per the procedure. Still, it was not intimated to thepetitioner that Registry exempted the petitioner, and there was no needCto interact with the Registrar. The petitioner was out of Delhi due to pre-arrangement and did not carry a soft or hard copy of the writ petition toargue the matter. The petitioner also prayed for time of six weeks to fileannexure/ evidence, i.e., complaint/ reminder concerning de-tagging ofWrit, delay in checking and rechecking the matters, application, and replyDunder RTI regarding de-tagging, proof of excess court fee, etc. to provehis submissions before this Court. The prayer to adjourn the case wasdeclined, and the case was listed forhearing on 19.6.2020. The petitionerwas heard in person. He repeated the facts about the discriminationbeing meted out by the Registry ofnotlisting the cases promptly.

E8. We have also perused the files of the cases. Writ Petition (C)D. No.10951 of 2020 was filed on 17.4.2020 during the nationwidelockdown, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer forthe One Nation One Ration Card Scheme. It was heard and decided on27.4.2020. The Union of India was directed to examine whether it wasfeasible for it to implement the Scheme at this stage or not and takeFappropriate decision in this regard, keeping in view the presentcircumstances. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

9. Although defects were noted,Writ Petition (C) Diary No.10951of 2020 was listed, heard, and finally decided on 27.4.2020. It was filedon 17.4.2020. 18[th] and 19[th] April 2020 were the holidays. There wereGonly five working days, and during the nationwide lockdown, the courtfunctioning was minimal. The case was mentioned in the cause list on26.4.2020 to be listed on 27.4.2020. Thus, it could not be said that therewas delay much less inordinate one by the officials of the Registry inlisting the matter mentioned above.

H

H

10. Concerning the second instance, i.e., Diary No.11236 of 2020,which was filed by petitioner on 9.5.2020, the Registry has noted severaldefects on 14.5.2020. The petition is still lying with defects.

11. Concerning the third instance i.e., Writ Petition No.522 of2020 (D. No.11552 of 2020), the same was filed on 20.5.2020. Again, adefective petition and defects were pointed out by the Registry on26.5.2020 that the whole index was blank. Petition, Affidavit,Vakalatnama, Memo of Appearance, and Application were all unsignedwith a deficit court fee, etc. The petitioner removed the defects. However,other defects were caused,such as the application filed was not properas heading did not tally with the index, and specific subjects and prayerswere not mentioned. The defects were re-cured, and the petition wasre-filed on 3.6.2020. The matter was processed and listed on 9.6.2020and was heard and dismissed on 12.6.2020 as other matters on the similarissues were pending as such the matter was not considered to benecessary. The petitioner has not disclosed about listing of the case for12.6.2020, and its decision and averred that the computer-generateddate was 6.7.2020. The Registry did not follow the computer-generateddate, and the case was listed for 12.6.2020 on which it was dismissed.The petitioner himself was responsible for 12-13 days of delay in removingthe defects.

12. As to case of Arnab Goswami, it was listed urgently in viewof order of competent authority. It pertained to liberty and freedom ofmedia.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the ongoingpandemic caused by COVID-19, the Registry of this Court is workingwith less strength, and because of the facts described above andcircumstances, we find that there was no justification for the petitionerto allege discrimination vis-à-vis to him and to favour any particularindividual. The defects were there in all the three cases filed by thepetitioner.

14. The petitioner has filed this writ application in a hurry. Whenit was listed, he circulated a letter to the effect that, as per procedure, heexpected that he would be called for interaction by Registrar of thisCourt to find out his fitness whether he could argue a case in person.The petitioner ought to know that he is an Advocate of this Court andargues the matter in this Court. As such, it was not necessary to summonhim for adjudging his capability as to whether he could argue the case.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ABe that as it may. Circulating such a letter was not appropriate at hisstanceand why he doubted his ability to argue. There was no justificationto entertain this kind of apprehension in mind. He ought to have beencareful in circulating such a letter seeking a wholly unjustifiedadjournment.

B15. In the letter circulated by him, it was further stated that hewanted to collect the evidence and to file it, and for that purpose, heprayed for six weeks’ time. The conduct indicates that the petitionerwas careless and not serious whilehe made the allegations. He filed writapplication without due inquiries, and without collecting the requisitematerial. Such conduct was least expected of an officer of thisCCourt.Petitioner ought to have been careful before cast of unnecessaryaspersions on the Registry and staff of this Court.

16. The petition as filed could not be said to be maintainable. Thepetitioner has impleaded the Secretary General, various Registrars, andofficers of the Registry, SCBA, and Union of India in his writ application.DIn contrast, Writ is filed against this Court itself. He ought to haveimpleaded the Supreme Court of India in the Writ application throughSecretary-General. The omission indicates careless conduct on the partof the petitioner. The petition was filed in undue haste.

17. We take judicial notice of the fact that a large number ofEpetitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made to listthem and mention is made that they should be listed urgently. It happensin a large number of matters, and unnecessary pressure is put upon theAssistants dealing with the cases. We find due to mistakes/carelessnesswhen petitions with defects are filed, it should not be expected that theyFshould be listed instantly. To err is human and there can be an error onthe part of the Dealing Assistants too. This is too much to expect perfectionfrom them, particularly when they are working to their maximum capacityeven during the pandemic. The cases are being listed. It could not besaid that there was an inordinate delay in listing the matters in view ofthe defects. The Court functioned during the lockdown, the cases wereGscanned and listed by the Registry. The staff of this Court is workingdespite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic, and severalof the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers, have suffered due to Covid-19.During such a hard time, it was not expected of the petitioner who is anofficer of this Court to file such a petition to demoralize the Registry ofHthis Court instead of recognizing the task undertaken by them even duringpandemic and lockdown period.

18. We see, in general, it has become a widespread practice toblame the Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as many petitionsare filed with defects, and defects are not cured for years together. Alarge number of such cases were listed in the recent past before theCourt for removal of defects which were pending for years. In suchsituation, when the pandemic is going on, baseless and reckless allegationsare made against the Registry of this Court, which is part and parcel ofthe judicial system. We take judicial notice of the fact that such evil isalso spreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamedunnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be remembered by worthylawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; they are officers ofthe Court and are a class apart in the society. Regarding exemplarybehaviorfrom members of noble profession in R. Muthukrishnanv. TheRegistrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, WritPetition (C) No.612 of 2016 the Court observed concerning theexpectation from gentlemen lawyers, thus:

“23. The role of Lawyer is indispensable in the system of deliveryof justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintainthe high standard. His duty is to the court to his own client, to theopposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counselalso. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improperfor him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class of thesociety and a member of the noble profession, the expectationfrom him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society.People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial systemand the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigantsrepose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information.They put their signatures wherever asked by a Lawyer. Anadvocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure thatuntainted justice delivered to his cause.

24. The high values of the noble profession have to be protectedby all concerned at all costs and in all the circumstances cannotbe forgotten even by the youngsters in the fight of survival informative years. The nobility of legal profession requires anAdvocate to remember that he is not over attached to any caseas Advocate does not win or lose a case, real recipient of justiceis behind the curtain, who is at the receiving end. As a matter offact, we do not give to a litigant anything except recognizing his A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

rights. A litigant has a right to be impartially advised by a lawyer.Advocates are not supposed to be money guzzlers or ambulancechasers. A Lawyer should not expect any favour from the Judgeand should not involve by any means in influencing the fair decision-making process. It is his duty to master the facts and the law andsubmit the same precisely in the Court, his duty is not to waste theCourts’ time.

25. It is said by Alexander Cockburn that “the weapon of theadvocate is the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin”.It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from aJudge. He must rely on the precedents, read them carefully andavoid corruption and collusion of any kind, not to make falsepleadings and avoid twisting of facts. In a profession, everythingcannot be said to be fair even in the struggle for survival. Theethical standard is uncompromisable. Honesty, dedication and hardwork is the only source towards perfection. An Advocate conductis supposed to be exemplary. In case an Advocate causes disreputeof the Judges or his colleagues or involves himself in misconduct,that is the most sinister and damaging act which can be done tothe entire legal system. Such a person is definitely deadwood anddeserves to be chopped off.

x x x

40. The Bar Council has the power to discipline lawyers andmaintain nobility of profession and that power imposes greatresponsibility. The Court has the power of contempt and that lethalpower too accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is aweapon like Brahmasatra to be used sparingly to remain effective.At the same time, a Judge has to guard the dignity of the Courtand take action in contempt and in case of necessity to imposeappropriate exemplary punishment too. A lawyer is supposed tobe governed by professional ethics, professional etiquette andprofessional ethos which are a habitual mode of conduct. He hasto perform himself with elegance, dignity and decency. He has tobear himself at all times and observe himself in a manner befittingas an officer of the Court. He is a privileged member of thecommunity and a gentleman. He has to mainsail with honesty andsail with the oar of hard word, then his boat is bound to reach tothe bank. He has to be honest, courageous, eloquent, industrious,witty and judgmental.

76. Soul searching is absolutely necessary and the blame gameand maligning must stop forthwith. Confidence and reverence andpositive thinking is the only way. It is pious hope that the BarCouncil would improve upon the function of its disciplinarycommittees so as to make the system more accountable, publishperformance audit on the disciplinary side of various bar councils.The same should be made public. The Bar Council of India underits supervisory control can implement good ideas as always doneby it and would not lag behind in cleaning process so badly required.It is to make the profession more noble and it is absolutely necessaryto remove the black sheeps from the profession to preserve therich ideals of Bar and on which it struggled for the values offreedom. It is basically not for the Court to control the Bar. It isthe statutory duty of Bar to make it more noble and also to protectthe Judges and the legal system, not to destroy the Bar itself byinaction and the system which is important pillar of democracy.”

(emphasis supplied)

19. In Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC156,it was observed:

“24.…… In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India[1], this Courthas observed that in a petition filed under Article 32 in the form ofPIL attempt of mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Courtand also against the other constitutional institutions indulged in byan advocate in a careless manner, meaningless and ascontradictory pleadings, clumsy allegations, contempt was orderedto be drawn. The Registry was directed not to entertain any PILpetition of the petitioner in future.”

25. In R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court[2] this Court observedthat there could be ways in which conduct and action of malefactorwas professional misconduct. The purity of the court proceedingshas to be maintained. The Court does not only have the right butalso an obligation to protect itself and can bar the malefactor fromappearing before the Court for an appropriate period of time. Thereis a duty cast upon an advocate to protect the dignity of this Courtnot to scandalize the very institution as observed in the saiddecision.”

1 (1988) 3 SCC 255

2 (2009) 8 SCC 106

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A20. We expect members of the noble fraternity to respectthemselves first.They are an intellectual class of the society. What maybe proper for others may still be improper for them,the expectationsfrom them is to be exemplary to the entire society, then only the dignityof noble profession and judicial system can be protected. The Registryis nothing butan arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar isBequally respected and responsible part of the integral system, Registry ispart and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem andmutual reverence. We also expect from the Registry to work efficientlyand effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the lawyers also toremove the defects effectively and not to unnecessarily cast aspersionsCon the system.

21. Thus, we find no ground to entertain the petition. We expectthe petitioner to be more careful and live up to the dignity of theprofessionwhich it enjoys.

22. We dismiss the petition and impose cost of Rs.100/- (RupeesDOne Hundred only) on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibilitytowards noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such apetition.

EAnkit Gyan

Writ Petition dismissed.

F

G

H