The Supreme Court of India criticized the administrative wing for not listing several cases as per judicial directions, highlighting systemic issues within the court’s procedural operations. The controversy emerged around the Hashimpura massacre-related pleas, which were not scheduled for hearing despite explicit orders from the Court.
During the proceedings of the case Saddam Hussain MK & Ors. v Union of India, Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that the registry’s refusal to list cases, citing non-compliance with procedural norms by litigants, directly contradicts the court’s directive. “The Registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the cases on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects,” stated the Bench in their order dated December 20.
The registry defended its decision by referencing Rule 2 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which mandates that petitioners must notify the caveators by serving them copies of the pleas. However, the justices noted that the 2013 Rules do not prohibit listing cases if procedural requirements are unmet, especially under court orders.
The court further clarified the roles of caveators in cases of special leave petitions or appeals, noting that while they do not have the right to be heard on the admission of appeals, they do have rights concerning interim relief applications. This nuance, the court indicated, was overlooked by the registry in their decision-making process.
While no disciplinary actions were mandated for the registry officials involved, the court expressed its hope that such oversights would not recur. The Justices have now directed the registry to list all similar pending matters for January 17, 2025, to ensure timely hearings.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the National Investigation Agency, while Senior Advocates Aditya Sondhi, Raghenth Basant, and K Parameshwar appeared for the accused.
