A petition in the Supreme Court seeks direction to the Registry not to discriminate, humiliate the litigants and to give equal treatment to all litigants by avoiding ‘Pick and Choose Policy’.
A lawyer, Reepak Kansal, has filed a petition against the Secretary General and the Registry of the Supreme Court for allegedly giving preferential treatment to influential law firms and litigants while listing matters.
The petitioner-in-person has urged the Court that guidelines and directions are needed to stop the Registry from “discriminating against ordinary lawyers.”
The petitioner has highlighted instances where the Registry and its sections Officers immediately cleared and listed non- categorized cases in late hours without pointing out defects and following procedure as per notification.
The petitioner has further alleged that the Registry and its Section Officers take several days to check and point out the defects if it is filed by an ordinary petitioner or lawyer, however, they list the cases within a few minutes by ignoring the defects and procedure if it is filed by any influential lawyer or petitioner.
It has been further alleged that the registry has harassed the petitioner by demanding excess fee and charges and pointing out unnecessary and false defects with an intention to delay the cases and has also illegally de-tagged the matter by ignoring the direction of the Supreme Court.
Seeing the disparity and discrimination on the part of Registry, the petitioner made a complaint to Secretary-General of the Supreme Court “against the illegal activities of The registry, however, the Registry did not respond to the Secretary General’s notice”.
The petitioner, who is also a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), also requested to Secretary /executive members of SCBA against the Registry for not listing the said Writ Petition. Seeing partiality in the part of Registry, the SCBA drafted a Resolution against the illegal activities and discrimination in part of Registry, which is still pending.
The petitioner has urged the Court “to take action against the erring officer for their involvement in listing, clearing, and bench hunting.”
The plea, which is listed for hearing on June 18 before a Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, states that a mechanism needs to be established so that litigants are not “humiliated” and that “equal treatment is given to all litigants by avoiding Pick and Choose Policy as adopted by respondents”.