Summary
An advocate’s petition alleging discriminatory scrutiny and listing by the Supreme Court Registry was dismissed. Examination of the files showed defects in his petitions, delay attributable to curing them, and listing earlier than the computer-generated date. The comparator case had been urgently listed under competent authority’s order because it concerned liberty and media freedom. Unsupported allegations and failure to implead the Supreme Court through its Secretary-General also drew criticism. Token costs of Rs.100 were imposed.
Issues
- Whether the records supported discrimination in scrutiny and listing of the petitioner’s cases.
- Whether the petition was properly constituted and supported by adequate material.
Held
- The first matter was processed within five working days during reduced pandemic functioning; the second remained defective; and the third was listed and decided before the alleged future date, with delay in curing defects attributable to the petitioner. These records did not establish discriminatory treatment. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 13)
- Urgent listing of the comparator case followed an order of the competent authority and concerned liberty and freedom of the media; it did not substantiate the allegation of favouritism on this record. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The petitioner sought time to collect evidence after making allegations and had not impleaded the Supreme Court through the Secretary-General. The Court found the petition inadequately investigated and improperly constituted. (¶¶ 7, 14, 15, 16)
- Lawyers should cure filing defects effectively and avoid unsupported aspersions; the Registry was also expected to work efficiently. No ground for entertaining the petition was established. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Result
Writ petition dismissed with token costs of Rs.100 payable by the petitioner.