The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the Registry does not have the authority to delete a case from the cause list once it has been listed unless there is a specific order from the concerned bench or the Chief Justice of India.
“The fact that service of notice of making alternate arrangements was not served is no ground to delete a case which is notified on the cause list. Once the case is notified on the cause list, unless there is a specific order to that effect, either of the bench concerned or Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Registry has no authority to delete a case which is already listed,” – Supreme Court
Case Background
The issue arose when the Supreme Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) originally listed at serial number 11 on January 26, 2025. However, the Registry removed the case from the cause list, citing the reason that the notice of alternate arrangement had not been served on the litigant.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Registry had taken this step because the litigant’s Advocate-on-Record had been designated as a Senior Advocate and had not received a notice of alternate arrangement. The Court found this reasoning to be “specious” and stated that such a deletion was unauthorized.
The Court further highlighted that the Registry regularly lists a large number of cases even when notices are either not returned or not served. The non-service of a notice of alternate arrangement alone does not justify removing a case from the cause list.
The Supreme Court took a strict view of the matter and directed that no case should be removed from the cause list without prior approval from the bench or the Chief Justice.
The Court also took note of a previous order, where Justice Abhay S. Oka was a party, emphasizing that the Registry must notify judges in advance and provide a valid reason before removing a case from the list.
As a result, the Registrar (Judicial Listing) was directed to explain the removal. The Registrar’s report, dated January 31, 2025, confirmed that the notice of alternate arrangement had been issued to the sole respondent’s counsel, Advocate M.C. Dhingra, who had since been designated as a Senior Advocate. The report also clarified that while the notice was delivered on January 27, 2025, no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent.
However, the Registry acknowledged that the service of notice was now complete, and the matter, along with related applications, had been relisted before the Court with the office report.
Read Also:- TN Govt Moves SC Against Governor Over Pending Bills
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the functioning of its Registry.
“The Registry cannot defy the specific orders of the Court and refuse to list a case on procedural grounds.” – Supreme Court
In previous instances, the Court has criticized the Registry for failing to list cases in accordance with judicial orders.
For instance, in August 2024, a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had sought an explanation for a case not being listed despite clear judicial instructions. The Court has repeatedly warned against procedural lapses and unauthorized actions by the Registry.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anup Singh
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10642/2019
