Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report on the procedural lapses in the Registry regarding the acceptance of documents from individuals not formally impleaded as parties in ongoing cases. The court observed that the Registry had improperly accepted a counter affidavit and annexures from a proposed respondent who had not yet been impleaded in the Special Leave Petition (SLP). Expressing concern over repeated non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules, the bench has sought clarification on corrective measures undertaken to address these lapses.

The matter pertains to an SLP filed by the petitioner challenging a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. During the proceedings, an application (IA No. 161791/2024) was filed on July 26, 2024, by an individual seeking to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the case. Along with this application, the proposed respondent also submitted a counter affidavit and seven supporting documents. However, the court had not granted permission to implead the individual as a party. Despite this, the Registry accepted and included these documents in the case records.

On November 14, 2024, the Supreme Court raised concerns about this irregularity and sought an explanation from the Registry. The court also directed the State’s counsel to provide an update on the latest status of the investigation related to the case. The matter was subsequently adjourned for two weeks, with an interim order continuing until the next hearing.

Upon examining the explanation provided by the Registry, the Supreme Court found that the justification given was inadequate. The Registry had defended its action by stating that there were no specific rules prohibiting the acceptance of such documents and that the practice was followed to ensure that all relevant material was available to the court if mentioned during proceedings. However, the court noted that:

• "Unless the applicant was permitted to be impleaded by the Court and unless he was permitted to file a counter affidavit or the documents, the concerned Section/Branch of the Registry could not have accepted the said counter affidavit or the documents from the proposed party, and made such counter/documents part of the record."

• The practice of accepting documents from individuals who are not formally parties to a case is against procedural norms and has been previously flagged by the court.

• The justification provided by the Registry, merely citing past practice, was not acceptable.

• The procedural irregularities extend beyond the present case, with multiple instances of the Registry accepting illegible or non-compliant documents in violation of Supreme Court Rules.

The bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, expressed concern over the Registry’s failure to rectify such procedural lapses despite repeated judicial observations on the matter.

Directives

1. Submission of Compliance Report: The Registrar (Judicial) has been directed to submit a report by February 21, 2025, detailing whether any corrective actions have been taken in response to previous judicial orders highlighting procedural deficiencies in the Registry.

2. Clarification on Follow-Up Measures: The court has asked for a status update on steps implemented to discontinue improper practices within the Registry and ensure adherence to Supreme Court Rules.

3. Continuation of Interim Order: The court has maintained the interim relief granted earlier in the case until the next hearing.

Case Title: Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

[Read/Download order]