SC lawyers give 50 paise each to raise Rs.100 for advocate fined for accusing registry of bias

BACKDROP

A bench led by Justice Arun Mishra, on 6 July dismissed advocate Reepak Kansal’s petition alleging that the Apex court’s registry gave preferential or bias treatment to influential law firms and litigants while listing matters. And further imposed a fine of Rs. 100 on the advocate.

Advocate Kansal had earlier filed a petition, raising the issue before the court that guidelines are required to stop the registry from “discriminating against ordinary lawyers”. He said there is policy of “pick and choose” adopted by the Registry in listing of matters, wherein some cases remained unlisted for days while some would be listed within hours of being filed. Also, he mentioned about registry’s swiftness in listing Arnab Goswami’s petition on urgent basis.

A SYMBOLIC PROTEST

This drive to collect Rs 50 paise coins was started on July 7, a day after the judgment was delivered and once the target amount of Rs 100, that is 200 coins, is collected, the same would be submitted to the Registry.

A WhatsApp group was created in order to bring together all the lawyers who wished to register their protest in this matter andthe target of 200 lawyers had already pledged their support for Kansal.

Initially, the amount was fixed as Re 1 for each member. Later, it was brought down to 50 paise after more lawyers joined the group.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

"I am happy. It is not my personal issue, other lawyers have been also been facing discrimination. It is a good initiative. Members of SCBA have been supporting my voice against illegal act of registry and many Executive members are also part of this (WhatsApp) group." - Advocate ReepakKansal

BASELESS AND RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS: SUPREME COURT

Supreme court in reply to the same added that "to err is human" and such errors can occur in especially when work is being carried out to the maximum capacity during a pandemic. The Judgment said,

"We take judicial notice of the fact that a large number of petitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made to list them and mention is made that they should be listed urgently. It happens in a large number of matters, and unnecessary pressure is put upon the Assistants dealing with the cases. We find due to mistakes/ carelessness when petitions with defects are filed, it should not be expected that they should be listed instantly. To err is human and there can be an error on the part of the Dealing Assistants too."

The Court has maintained that even in the High Courts, the Registry and its officers are often blamed for "no good reasons." The verdict further said,

"The Registry is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is equally respected and responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence"

Lastly, About Goswami’s case, the court said his petition was listed urgently in view of the order from a competent authority. “It pertained to liberty and freedom of media,” the court said.