The Supreme Court of India has directed the Registrar General of Madras High Court to explain why an anticipatory bail plea under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not listed before the concerned bench.
A bench of Justices Manoj Mishra and NK Singh was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the refusal of the registry to list the anticipatory bail plea. The registry had declined to place the matter before the court citing bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act, 1989, which prohibits grant of anticipatory bail in such cases.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the admissibility of the petition should be decided only by the bench and not the registry.
Read also: Supreme Court to Hear Plea Against Maratha Reservation in July
"It is the court which has to decide whether the petition is admissible or not," the bench said.
The petitioner argued that the registry's action was an encroachment of its administrative role as it cannot assess the judicial merit or admissibility of a case.
However, the petitioner was arrested on June 27 even before the Supreme Court intervened on the request for anticipatory bail. The arrest rendered the main prayer for anticipatory bail redundant, but the counsel for the petitioner urged the court to address the procedural lapse.
Read also: NEET-PG 2024: Petition in Supreme Court Against Conversion of Chandigarh UT Quota to All India
Taking the matter seriously, the Supreme Court passed the following order:
“At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to the intervening arrest of the petitioners, this special leave petition has become infructuous with regard to the main prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he submitted that the Registrar of the Madras High Court should be asked to explain under what circumstances the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was not placed before the Court.”
In response to this limited prayer, the bench issued a formal notice:
“In the light of the limited prayer, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the Registrar of the Madras High Court to explain as to why the case of the petitioners was not placed before the Court, as ultimately it is for the Court to decide whether the petition is maintainable or not.”
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Grant Bail to PFI Leader AS Ismail on Medical Grounds, Seeks Report on
The Supreme Court has now listed the matter for hearing after four weeks. The Registrar General has been directed to file a personal affidavit and a detailed report explaining the reasons for withholding judicial scrutiny of the anticipatory bail application.
This development highlights the importance of a clear demarcation between administrative processes and judicial functions, especially in sensitive cases under special laws such as the SC/ST Act.
The petitioner was represented by Tushar Giri, Advocate-on-Record.
