Summary
The Supreme Court directed the Madras High Court Registry to number an anticipatory-bail petition and place it before a judicial bench. Whether the statutory SC/ST Act bar made that petition maintainable required judicial application of mind. The Registry’s administrative scrutiny could not substitute for that determination. Neither bail merits nor the validity or scope of the 2018 amendment was decided.
Issues
- Whether the Registry could reject numbering on the statutory maintainability objection.
- Which issues remained open to judicial determination.
Provisions considered
- Section 18A(2), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The statutory bar raised a question requiring determination by the appropriate judicial bench, rather than a Registry refusal to number; its scope and validity were left open. (¶ 7–11)
Held
- Numbering is an administrative function. The maintainability objection here required applying legal standards to the petition, a judicial function which could not be delegated to the Registry. (¶ 8–10)
- The Registry had to number and place the petition before the appropriate bench. No view was expressed on the amendment, the standard or extent of review under Section 18A, or the underlying bail merits. (¶ 10–13)
Result
Petition disposed of. Registry’s refusal to number set aside; numbering and placement before the appropriate High Court bench directed. Statutory and bail merits expressly preserved for judicial consideration.