The Supreme Court of India, in a strongly worded order, criticized its Registry for procedural lapses in accepting a counter-affidavit from a non-party in the case Harmanpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab [SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024]. The bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, took serious note of the Registry’s failure to comply with procedural norms and directed corrective measures.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an appeal filed by Harmanpreet Singh, challenging the order dated May 17, 2024, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M No. 19508/2024. The case pertains to ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, where he sought relief from the Supreme Court.
During the course of the proceedings, an application for impleadment was filed by Amandeep Singh, a complainant in the case, seeking to be added as Respondent No. 2. Along with this, a counter-affidavit was submitted, which was accepted and made part of the record by the Registry without the Court’s permission.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court was called upon to examine multiple procedural issues, including:
1. Acceptance of Counter-Affidavit from a Non-Party – The complainant had not been formally impleaded as a respondent, yet the Registry accepted his counter-affidavit.
2. Violation of Supreme Court Rules – The Court pointed out the lack of adherence to established judicial procedures regarding impleadment and submission of documents.
3. Responsibility of the Registry – The matter raised concerns over the accountability of Registry officials in ensuring compliance with procedural norms.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench expressed strong displeasure over the Registry’s conduct, highlighting the recurring procedural errors. The order stated:
“It hardly needs to be stated 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.”
The Court further noted that the Dealing Assistant, along with the Branch Officer and Assistant Registrar, had merely followed an erroneous practice without any due diligence. The order criticized this approach, remarking:
“It is very unfortunate that the concerned Dealing Assistant has tried to justify the lapse quoting the practice prevailing in the Registry, and the concerned Branch Officer and the Assistant Registrar have simply put their signatures on such unacceptable justification.”
Directive for Corrective Measures
The Supreme Court, in its order, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a detailed report on whether any corrective measures have been taken regarding previous judicial observations on Registry malpractices. The Court emphasized:
“This Court has time and again observed that the concerned Section/Branch of the Registry is accepting the documents/reply/counter from the party, who would not be a party – respondent in the proceedings nor would he have filed any caveat. Many a times, the documents would be accepted, though absolutely illegible and not even typewritten.”
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on February 21, 2025, with an interim order continuing until the next date.
Legal Representation
– For the Petitioner (Harmanpreet Singh):
– Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR
– Mr. Saransh Bhardwaj, Advocate
– For the Respondent (State of Punjab):
– Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
– Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate
– Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR
