The Allahabad High Court has directed an inquiry into the irregular listing of a case before a coordinate bench, raising concerns over possible tampering with the court’s jurisdictional framework. The order was passed by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan while hearing Writ-C No. 4521 of 2001, filed by Naresh Chand Jain and Others against the Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another.
Background of the Case
The petitioners had challenged an order dated December 26, 2000, and sought its quashing through a writ of certiorari. The matter, which was to be heard by the appropriate bench, was instead placed before a coordinate bench due to an unexplained listing anomaly. This prompted the court to scrutinize the registry’s functioning and the software responsible for case allotment.
Legal Issues Raised
- Jurisdictional Anomalies in Case Listing: The court noted that despite its jurisdiction over the matter, the case was listed before a coordinate bench, raising suspicions about procedural lapses.
- Tampering with Software-Generated Listings: The bench expressed concern over the possible manual interference in the court’s computer database, which determines case assignments.
- Violation of Court Procedures: The court underscored that changing the Bench I.D. in the database without authorization amounted to interference in judicial administration.
Court’s Observations and Directions
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan emphasized the seriousness of the issue, stating:
“The change of Bench I.D. without proper permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, prima facie, amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”
The court further remarked that listing applications should follow the jurisdictional mandate and must not be redirected arbitrarily. It was noted that such discrepancies have occurred in multiple cases, indicating systemic issues within the registry.
To address this, the court ordered the Registrar General of the High Court to conduct an inquiry and submit a detailed report on the circumstances leading to the misplacement of the listing application. The inquiry must ascertain whether the Bench I.D. in the court’s database was altered manually and, if so, identify the officials responsible.
Additionally, the court ruled:
- The Registrar General must personally oversee the investigation and ensure that no unauthorized modifications occur in the case allocation system.
- A two-factor authentication system should be implemented to prevent unauthorized changes in the Bench I.D.
- A compliance report on these directives must be submitted by March 12, 2025.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on March 12, 2025, where the Registrar General is required to appear with the investigation report. The court has also ordered that this case remain exclusively tied to its bench to prevent further listing anomalies.
Legal Representation
The petitioners were represented by Amit Saxena and Santosh Tripathi, while the respondents were represented by A.K. Misra, Aditya Singh, Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, and S.C.
