SC dismisses plea alleging bias in listing of cases, imposes fine of Rs 100

During the hearing, the top court had expressed unhappiness over the plea saying the apex court's registry has been working "day-and-night" for the benefit of litigants as well as advocates

Supreme Court
The PIL alleged that preference in listing of cases are being given to influential lawyers/petitioners.
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Jul 06 2020 | 3:02 PM IST
The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea alleging bias in listing of cases by its registry officials and imposed a fine of Rs 100 on a lawyer for filing such a petition.

A bench comprising Arun Mishra and S A Nazeer said it was dismissing the PIL filed by lawyer Reepal Kansal and was imposing a cost of Rs 100 on him for filing such a petition.

Kansal said that due to technical glitches, the bench couldn't pronounce its judgement via video conference and apprised of its verdict telephonically.

The lawyer said that the court has held that the allegations had no basis.

The PIL alleged that preference in listing of cases are being given to influential lawyers/petitioners.

The top court, on June 19, had reserved its verdict on the PIL seeking a direction to its registry officials not to give preferences to cases filed by influential advocates or litigants in listing before benches at the challenging times when virtual courts are functioning due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic.


During the hearing, the top court had expressed unhappiness over the plea saying the apex court's registry has been working "day-and-night" for the benefit of litigants as well as advocates.

"The registry is working day-and-night for you people...this has become a trend," the bench had said.

The plea had also sought a direction to the apex court's Secretary General and other officials to stop discrimination against not-so-influential lawyers.

The plea said there was no mechanism to address complaints against erring officers of the registry who favour some law firms/advocates for reasons best known to them.

It also sought direction to the officials concerned not to point out unnecessary defects in cases of ordinary advocates/petitioners and refund the excess court fee and other charges.

One subscription. Two world-class reads.

Already subscribed? Log in

Subscribe to read the full story →
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

Topics :Supreme Court

Next Story