The Supreme Court of India has recently expressed serious concern over an alleged procedural lapse by its Registry concerning a case of pressing urgency. On Wednesday, the court, presided over by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, was apprised by a legal representative that a case filed on June 8 had not been scheduled for hearing due to purported misplacement of documents by the Registry.
CJI Surya Kant, taking a firm stance on the matter, emphasized that accountability would be established if the claim of negligence proved accurate. “If our registry is misplacing urgent files, then do you think I will leave it at that? I will have to take it up and see who is to blame,” he stated unequivocally.
The Bench has instructed the Advocate-on-Record to submit a formal complaint without delay, requesting it be delivered directly to CJI Kant either in his chambers or at his residence. “Please ask the Advocate on Record to submit the complaint to me either in my chamber now or at my residence. But give it today itself. I will take it up,” added CJI Kant.
This incident is the latest in a series of occurrences that have led the Supreme Court to scrutinize the operations of its Registry. In a previous instance in May, a Bench led by CJI Kant expressed dissatisfaction with the Registry’s failure to issue a notice to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate despite explicit judicial instructions. The court described this oversight as “very nasty” and ordered a fact-finding inquiry to understand the misinterpretation of its directive.
Additionally, in February 2026, CJI Kant highlighted procedural irregularities when a petition, previously dismissed by a three-judge Bench, reappeared before another Bench. This anomaly was termed “shocking” by the court, prompting a call for a comprehensive administrative investigation into the Registry’s processes and the establishment of individual accountability.
More Read
Similar issues have been raised by other Benches, pointing to inconsistencies such as related cases being listed before different Benches and various procedural discrepancies. In response, the court has consistently underscored the necessity to refine administrative procedures and enforce accountability within the Registry.
