Aastha Thakur
Published on: 25 September 2022 at 20:48 IST
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and B.V. Nagarathna issued a notice against SLP challenging the order of the Madras High Court and then uploading the different order on the website.
The alleged order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The counsel appearing from the plaintiff’s side submits that the original order was deleted and, in its place, the modified one was uploaded.
Senior Advocate K Subramanian claims that the operative part of the judgement directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 115 crores in the Indian Bank Annanagar, Chennai trust, was deleted. He elaborated that-
“There are two orders. The first is the order pronounced in open court and signed by the learned Judge on September 1. This was uploaded onto the website on September 5. “
“This was later deleted. In the order that is now available, certain paragraphs have been modified, and the direction to deposit Rs 115 crores has been deleted. On September 7, we were given a certified copy of this second order.”
At last, the senior counsel pleaded that the matter deal with the public’s trust in the judiciary. Hence, the original order must be restored by the Court.
The sitting judges were perplexed by the matter. After comparing both copies of the original and the modified order, the bench dictated the order—
“A very unusual situation has been brought to our notice by counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench of the High Court concluded the hearing on August 29, 2022. On September 1, the Bench pronounced its order in open court.”
“The order which was pronounced by the High Court and which the petitioner has downloaded from the website of the High Court [has been produced].”
“But after two days, this order was replaced and a different order was uploaded. A certified copy of the different order [has also been produced]. We have gone through both orders. Certain paragraphs are completely missing and deleted from the order that is now available on the website of the High Court. “
“The original order was removed from the website…Before we go into the merits of the grievance which has been placed by the petitioner, this matter requires further enquiry.”
The Bench felt the need for further probe and directed respondents as well as the Registrar-General of the Madras High Court to furnish status reports within 4 weeks.
Furthermore, the Bench ordered that the status quo be maintained in accordance with an earlier order issued by the High Court in the interim. At the end, Justice Rastogi remarked that such a situation is very strange.
The senior counsel agreed—
“Yes, My Lord, in my 50 years of practice, I have never come across anything like this.”
In his comments, Justice Rastogi commented that it is the first such case he has seen in his 40-year career. He further observed that it is apparent someone from the lawyer’s office is also involved in such a state of affairs. It’s not possible to happen without cooperation.