LI Network
Published on: 16 September 2023 at 17:55 IST
The Supreme Court recently admonished its Registry staff members for their failure to adhere to the Court’s instructions regarding the submission of two separate sets of translated copies of depositions of material witnesses in a case.
Despite explanations provided by the Senior Court Assistant, claiming that Court Masters did not convey the need for two separate sets of translated copies, the bench rejected the excuse.
However, following apologies from the staff members and assurances from the Registrar (Judicial Listing) that such lapses would not occur again, the bench closed the matter without taking any action against the Registry members.
A bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal expressed their disappointment, stating, “This is a very sorry state of affairs. The members of the staff of the Registry are not able to understand simple orders passed by this Court, and they are trying to shift the entire burden onto the Court Masters, which was uncalled for. When a Bench of two Judges requires printed copies of the depositions, it is obvious that only one copy cannot be supplied, and two copies are required. The explanations submitted by some staff members show that even this elementary knowledge was lacking.”
The Court’s order from May 12, 2023, explicitly stated, “The Registry to call for the record of the Trial Court and to provide a soft copy of the record to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Registry to place on record the printed version of the depositions of the material witnesses. List on 21st July 2023.”
The bench initially found the earlier order to be very clear, as it was issued to review the depositions. However, subsequent compliance with the order was lacking. Consequently, on August 25, 2023, an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial Listing) was requested. After reviewing the explanations from both the Registrar and the staff members, the bench observed, “It is unfortunate that the Senior Court Assistant and other officers have tried to shift the entire blame onto the Court Masters. According to us, the Court Masters had no role to play in compliance with the orders of this Court and they cannot be blamed for the lapse.”
The Court also directed the Registrar (Judicial Listing) to instruct the Registry staff members that they must diligently implement the Court’s orders. If any member of the Registry has any doubts, they should seek clarification through the Court Masters.
Case Title: Harphool @ Kala v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
