- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Directs investigation into misplacing Its Order from High Court's Records
Supreme Court Directs investigation into misplacing Its Order from High Court's Records The Supreme Court (SC) on 22 March 2021, in the case titled Karuna Shankar Singh (Petitioners) v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Respondents) in suo moto proceedings directed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad (HC) to investigate a matter concerning an order of Supreme Court that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court Directs investigation into misplacing Its Order from High Court's Records
The Supreme Court (SC) on 22 March 2021, in the case titled Karuna Shankar Singh (Petitioners) v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Respondents) in suo moto proceedings directed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad (HC) to investigate a matter concerning an order of Supreme Court that was received by the HC but not communicated to the Concerned Judge.
The SC bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah considered the prima facie finding of the Senior Registrar of the HC in which it was concluded that two HC officials were responsible for not communicating the Top Court order and for misplacing it from the records of the HC.
In the instant matter, the order of the Apex Court dated 21 November 2014 which was received by the HC on 18 December 2014 and delivered on 19 December 2014 to the concerned section.
The order of the SC went missing from the records of the HC and to trace out the order and also ascertain the actual date on which it was transmitted to District Judge of Gonda, the Senior Registrar had ordered a Preliminary Inquiry on 12 January 2021.
In the inquiry report, it was mentioned that the said order of the Top Court was received on 18 December 2014 but was not communicated to District Judge of Gonda by the concerned section.
It was further concluded by the inquiry officer that two officials of the HC were responsible for misplacing the SC's order from the records of the HC. A Departmental Inquiry was recommended against the delinquent officials in this matter.
The Top Court in its order took into consideration the inquiry report and directed that "The matter should be fully investigated under the administrative directions of the Chief Justice of the High Court and those responsible for dereliction in the performance of duty is held accountable by following the due process of law."
The SC added, "All necessary steps to comply with the above directions be initiated expeditiously for four weeks from today under intimation to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court."
The SC bench further gave directions to avoid such a situation in the future it directed to apprise the Court of the procedure which is followed by the Registry to communicate the orders of the SC not only to the HC but to the concerned Judge who has to take action in compliance.
It was further ordered that the said report be placed on the record and shall be taken up together with the report of the Registrar General of the HC.
The matter is listed on 12 July 2021 before the SC for further hearing.