New Delhi, February 26 Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on Thursday that he would be failing in his duty if he did not introduce reforms on the listing of cases in the Supreme Court registry before he retired.
The remarks were made by the CJI while hearing a plea related to the UP Gangsters Act, which had previously been dismissed by other benches of the apex court.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi called for a "deeper probe" into the conduct of the Supreme Court registry, as to how the case was listed before it, when a similar matter is also currently being heard by another bench of the top court.
The bench kept the petition filed by one Irfan Solanki challenging the validity of the UP Gangsters Act on the grounds that it was repugnant to BNS Section 111, a central law.
A law is said to be repugnant when a state and central law cover the same subject area, in which case the central law prevails.
He said that since he took over as CJI, he has taken strong measures on the listing of cases, but the problem persists.
"Last week, I received a complaint and I was shocked to see what is happening in the registry. The registry officials think they are here for 20-30 years and the judges are here for only 6-7 years. Judges come and go. The problem is they think we (judges) are all in the transit stage and they are permanent in this institution," CJI Kant said.
"This is what is happening and they think the registry should function the way they want. If I don't bring a reform to the Supreme Court registry before I retire, I will be failing in my duty," CJI Kant said.
The bench posted Solanki's petition for a hearing on March 25.
Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, who was appearing for Solanki, sought to withdraw the plea after Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the UP government, flagged that other benches of the court had dismissed such pleas on repugnancy between the state and central law.
A similar petition filed by one Siraj Ahmad Khan challenging the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act of 1986, is currently pending before a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan. ASG Nataraj was also appearing in that case.
Alam wanted Solanki’s petition to be tagged to Khan’s petition. ASG Nataraj pointed out that a three-judge bench headed by then CJI DY Chandrachud and another headed by Justice Dipankar Datta had earlier dismissed appeals filed against high court orders where the UP Gangsters Act were challenged on similar grounds.
"It is very unfair on the part of ASG to now ask the CJI court to summon the part-heard before this bench," Alam told the bench.
Responding to Justice Bagchi’s concern about repugnancy, Alam said it was a settled position that a central law makes the state’s law ineffective if it is on the same subject.
After Alam insisted on withdrawing the plea, the CJI stopped him and said that the court needed his assistance to reach the bottom of the issue of listing of cases.
CJI Kant said, "Let me examine this issue on the administrative side. How was the case listed before this court after prima facie another bench has expressed its opinion... The problem of dividing this court into different benches is disturbing."
"I have to launch a deeper probe into the conduct of the Supreme Court registry on the administrative side. We want to know, when a bench has expressed a prima facie opinion… how is that case travelling to another bench? This is not an isolated case as earlier also similar issues have cropped up," CJI Kant said.
