REEPAK KANSALversusSECRETARY GENERAL, & ORS.

                         [2020] 4 S.C.R. 459                             459


                        REEPAK KANSAL                                    A
                                  v.
SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2020)
                           JULY 06, 2020                                 B
       [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
        Constitution of India – Art. 32 – The petitioner, an advocate,
filed a writ petition during the pandemic of Covid-19 against the
various officers of the Registry of the Supreme Court and Union of
                                                                         C
India seeking direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential
lawyers/ petitioners, law firms etc. – Direction was also sought to
give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/
petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund the
excess Court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without     D
order or direction of the Court with other cases – Held: The petition
as filed could not be said to be maintainable – The Petitioner has
impleaded the Secretary General, various Registrars and Officers
of the Registry, SCBA and Union of India – In contrast, writ is filed
against the Supreme Court itself – He ought to have impleaded the
                                                                         E
Supreme Court of India in the Writ application through Secretary
General – The omission indicates careless conduct on the part of
the petitioner – The petition was filed in undue haste – The Supreme
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a large number of
petitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made
to list them and mention is made that they should be listed urgently     F
– It happens in large number of matters and unnecessary pressure
is put upon the Assistants dealing with the cases – This is too much
to expect perfection from them, particularly when they are working
to their maximum capacity even during the pandemic – The staff is
working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to
                                                                         G
pandemic and several of the dealing staff, as well as officers, have
suffered due to Covid-19 – In general, it has become a widespread
practice to blame the Registry for no good reasons – To err is human,
as many petitions are filed with defects and defects are not cured
for years together – In such situation when the pandemic is going
                                                                         H
                                 459
460            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     on, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry
      of the Supreme Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system
      – There are no ground to entertain the petition – Thus, the petition
      is dismissed.
            Advocate – Expectations from Advocates and the role of the
B     Registry – Held: The members of the noble fraternity are expected
      to respect themselves first – They are an intellectual class of the
      society – what may be proper for others may still be improper for
      them, the expectations from them is to be exemplary to the entire
      society, then only the dignity of noble profession and judicial can
      be protected – The Registry is nothing but an arm of the Supreme
C     court and an extention of its dignity – Bar is equally respected and
      responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and parcel
      of the system and the system has to work in tandem and mutual
      reverence.
            Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
D
            HELD : 1. The petition as filed could not be said to be
      maintainable. The petitioner has impleaded the Secretary
      General, various Registrars, and officers of the Registry, SCBA,
      and Union of India in his writ application. In contrast, Writ is filed
      against this Court itself. He ought to have impleaded the Supreme
E     Court of India in the Writ application through Secretary-General.
      The omission indicates careless conduct on the part of
      the petitioner. The petition was filed in undue haste. [Para 16]
      [466-D]
             2. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a large
F     number of petitions are filed which are defective; still, the
      insistence is made to list them and mention is made that they
      should be listed urgently. It happens in a large number of matters,
      and unnecessary pressure is put upon the Assistants dealing with
      the cases. When petitions with defects are filed, it should not be
G     expected that they should be listed instantly. To err is human
      and there can be an error on the part of the Dealing Assistants
      too. This is too much to expect perfection from them, particularly
      when they are working to their maximum capacity even during
      the pandemic. The cases are being listed. It could not be said
      that there was an inordinate delay in listing the matters in view of
H
   REEPAK KANSAL v. SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME                          461
              COURT OF INDIA & ORS.

the defects. The Court functioned during the lockdown, the cases        A
were scanned and listed by the Registry. The staff of this Court
is working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to
pandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers,
have suffered due to Covid-19. During such a hard time, it was
not expected of the petitioner who is an officer of this Court to
                                                                        B
file such a petition to demoralize the Registry of this Court instead
of recognizing the task undertaken by them even during pandemic
and lockdown period. [Para 17][466-E-H]
       3. In general, it has become a widespread practice to blame
the Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as many
petitions are filed with defects, and defects are not cured for years   C
together. A large number of such cases were listed in the recent
past before the Court for removal of defects which were pending
for years. In such situation, when the pandemic is going on,
baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry
of this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system. This    D
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that such evil is also
spreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamed
unnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be remembered by
worthy lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; they
are officers of the Court and are a class apart in the society. [Para
18][467-A-C]                                                            E

       4. This Court expects members of the noble fraternity to
respect themselves first. They are an intellectual class of the
society. What may be proper for others may still be improper for
them, the expectations from them is to be exemplary to the entire
society, then only the dignity of noble profession and judicial         F
system can be protected. The Registry is nothing but an arm of
this Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is equally respected
and responsible part of the integral system, Registry is part and
parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and
mutual reverence. It is also expected from the Registry to work         G
efficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the
lawyers also to remove the defects effectively and not to
unnecessarily cast aspersions on the system. [Para 20]
[470-A-C]

                                                                        H
462             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
      541 of 2020.
            Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
           Tushar Mehta, SG, Piyush Beriwal, Kanu Aggarwal, Arvind Kr.
      Sharma and B.V. Balram Das, Advs. for Respondents.
B
            Petitioner-in-person.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ARUN MISHRA, J.
              1. The petitioner,who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has
C
      filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against
      various officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India.
      Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction
      in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give
      preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms,
D     etc. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give equal
      treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/ petitioners and not to
      point out unnecessary defects, refund the excess court fee and other
      charges, and not to tag the cases without order or direction of the Court
      with other cases. A prayer has also been made to direct the Secretary
      General of this Court to take action against the erring officers for their
E
      involvement in the listing, clearing, and bench hunting.
            2. It is averred in the petition that equal treatment has not been
      given to the ordinary lawyers/ litigants. They favour some law firms or
      Advocates for reasons best known to them.
F            3. The petitioner’s first instance is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D.
      No.10951 of 2020 was filed by him on 16.4.2020. The Registry pointed
      out three defects, i.e. (1) Court Fee of Rs.530 was not paid, (2)
      Documents to be placed as per index, and (3) Details given in index
      were incomplete and annexures were not filed, matter to be rechecked.
      The petitioner had clarified vide email dated 18.4.2020 that he had paid
G     the court fee of Rs.730/- and there was no annexure with the petition.
      However, the petitioner was forced to pay more court fees to get the
      matter listed. Despite the letter of urgency, the Registry failed to register
      and list the writ petition. The petitioner requested the Secretary, Supreme
      Court Bar Association, about not listing the writ petition. On 27.4.2020,
H     the writ petition was listed before the Court.
   REEPAK KANSAL v. SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME                                  463
       COURT OF INDIA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

       4. The second instance given by the petitioner is that a Writ Petition   A
(Civil) D.No.11236 of 2020 was filed on 12.5.2020, which has not been
listed by the Registry till today. He was informed that there were no
defects in the writ petition, but a copy of the writ petition was missing.
After that, no update was given by the Registry.
      5. The third instance given is about Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of      B
2020 (Diary No.11552 of 2020) filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2020.
The Dealing Assistant pointed out defects on 26.5.2020. The defects
were pointed out by the Dealing Assistant after six days of filing, though
the application for urgency was filed in the petition. The following note
was made by the Registry:
                                                                                C
      “MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECHECK AS WHOLE INDEX
      IS BLANK, PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, VAKALATNAMA,
      MEMO OF APPEARANCE AND APPLICATION ALL ARE
      UNSIGNED AND DEFICIT COURT FEE ETC.”
      The petitioner clarified that the signed documents were already           D
uploaded. The matter was urgent, and he had uploaded them again along
with signed documents on 26.5.2020. Again the defects were pointed
out on 29.5.2020 by the Dealing Assistant to the following effect:
      “APPLICATION IS NOT PROPER AS HEADING NOT
      TALLY WITH INDEX AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE                                E
      SUBJECT AND PRAYER OF APPLICATION.”
       The petitioner cured the defects on 29.5.2020. After that, the
Dealing Assistant did not recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the petitioner
made a call and requested the Branch Officer concerned to direct the
Dealing Assistant to recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the matter was            F
rechecked and numbered as Diary No.11552 of 2020.The case was
verified on 6.6.2020 and listed for 6.7.2020 (computer-generated) which
would make the case infructuous. The application for urgency was not
considered. The petitioner was informed that the case was likely to be
listed on 6.7.2020. He sent an email about the urgency. The Registry
was not willing to list the Diary No.11552 of 2020 despite the application      G
for urgency. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.
        6. It is averred that on 23.4.2020, W.P. Diary No.11006 of 2020
titled as Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. UOI was filed at 8.07 p.m. without
annexure. The Registry had chosen not to point out any defects, and a
special supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. The category           H
464             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     was not specified in the notification to be heard during a nationwide
      lockdown. No procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearing
      during the lockdown. The petitioner made a complaint to Secretary-
      General against illegal activities of the Registry but the same is without
      response.
B             7. We have heard the petitioner. The present writ petition was
      initially listed for 18.6.2020, however on 17.6.2020; a letter was circulated
      by the petitioner that he was under the impression that Registry would
      call the petitioner to interact with the Registrar in order to appear and
      argue in person as per the procedure. Still, it was not intimated to the
      petitioner that Registry exempted the petitioner, and there was no need
C     to interact with the Registrar. The petitioner was out of Delhi due to pre-
      arrangement and did not carry a soft or hard copy of the writ petition to
      argue the matter. The petitioner also prayed for time of six weeks to file
      annexure/ evidence, i.e., complaint/ reminder concerning de-tagging of
      Writ, delay in checking and rechecking the matters, application, and reply
D     under RTI regarding de-tagging, proof of excess court fee, etc. to prove
      his submissions before this Court. The prayer to adjourn the case was
      declined, and the case was listed forhearing on 19.6.2020. The petitioner
      was heard in person. He repeated the facts about the discrimination
      being meted out by the Registry ofnotlisting the cases promptly.
E            8. We have also perused the files of the cases. Writ Petition (C)
      D. No.10951 of 2020 was filed on 17.4.2020 during the nationwide
      lockdown, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for
      the One Nation One Ration Card Scheme. It was heard and decided on
      27.4.2020. The Union of India was directed to examine whether it was
      feasible for it to implement the Scheme at this stage or not and take
F     appropriate decision in this regard, keeping in view the present
      circumstances. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
             9. Although defects were noted,Writ Petition (C) Diary No.10951
      of 2020 was listed, heard, and finally decided on 27.4.2020. It was filed
      on 17.4.2020. 18th and 19th April 2020 were the holidays. There were
G     only five working days, and during the nationwide lockdown, the court
      functioning was minimal. The case was mentioned in the cause list on
      26.4.2020 to be listed on 27.4.2020. Thus, it could not be said that there
      was delay much less inordinate one by the officials of the Registry in
      listing the matter mentioned above.
H
   REEPAK KANSAL v. SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME                                   465
       COURT OF INDIA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

      10. Concerning the second instance, i.e., Diary No.11236 of 2020,          A
which was filed by petitioner on 9.5.2020, the Registry has noted several
defects on 14.5.2020. The petition is still lying with defects.
       11. Concerning the third instance i.e., Writ Petition No.522 of
2020 (D. No.11552 of 2020), the same was filed on 20.5.2020. Again, a
defective petition and defects were pointed out by the Registry on               B
26.5.2020 that the whole index was blank. Petition, Affidavit,
Vakalatnama, Memo of Appearance, and Application were all unsigned
with a deficit court fee, etc. The petitioner removed the defects. However,
other defects were caused,such as the application filed was not proper
as heading did not tally with the index, and specific subjects and prayers
were not mentioned. The defects were re-cured, and the petition was              C
re-filed on 3.6.2020. The matter was processed and listed on 9.6.2020
and was heard and dismissed on 12.6.2020 as other matters on the similar
issues were pending as such the matter was not considered to be
necessary. The petitioner has not disclosed about listing of the case for
12.6.2020, and its decision and averred that the computer-generated              D
date was 6.7.2020. The Registry did not follow the computer-generated
date, and the case was listed for 12.6.2020 on which it was dismissed.
The petitioner himself was responsible for 12-13 days of delay in removing
the defects.
      12. As to case of Arnab Goswami, it was listed urgently in view            E
of order of competent authority. It pertained to liberty and freedom of
media.
       13. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the ongoing
pandemic caused by COVID-19, the Registry of this Court is working
with less strength, and because of the facts described above and                 F
circumstances, we find that there was no justification for the petitioner
to allege discrimination vis-à-vis to him and to favour any particular
individual. The defects were there in all the three cases filed by the
petitioner.
       14. The petitioner has filed this writ application in a hurry. When       G
it was listed, he circulated a letter to the effect that, as per procedure, he
expected that he would be called for interaction by Registrar of this
Court to find out his fitness whether he could argue a case in person.
The petitioner ought to know that he is an Advocate of this Court and
argues the matter in this Court. As such, it was not necessary to summon
him for adjudging his capability as to whether he could argue the case.          H
466             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     Be that as it may. Circulating such a letter was not appropriate at his
      stanceand why he doubted his ability to argue. There was no justification
      to entertain this kind of apprehension in mind. He ought to have been
      careful in circulating such a letter seeking a wholly unjustified
      adjournment.
B           15. In the letter circulated by him, it was further stated that he
      wanted to collect the evidence and to file it, and for that purpose, he
      prayed for six weeks’ time. The conduct indicates that the petitioner
      was careless and not serious whilehe made the allegations. He filed writ
      application without due inquiries, and without collecting the requisite
      material. Such conduct was least expected of an officer of this
C     Court.Petitioner ought to have been careful before cast of unnecessary
      aspersions on the Registry and staff of this Court.
             16. The petition as filed could not be said to be maintainable. The
      petitioner has impleaded the Secretary General, various Registrars, and
      officers of the Registry, SCBA, and Union of India in his writ application.
D     In contrast, Writ is filed against this Court itself. He ought to have
      impleaded the Supreme Court of India in the Writ application through
      Secretary-General. The omission indicates careless conduct on the part
      of the petitioner. The petition was filed in undue haste.
             17. We take judicial notice of the fact that a large number of
E     petitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made to list
      them and mention is made that they should be listed urgently. It happens
      in a large number of matters, and unnecessary pressure is put upon the
      Assistants dealing with the cases. We find due to mistakes/carelessness
      when petitions with defects are filed, it should not be expected that they
F     should be listed instantly. To err is human and there can be an error on
      the part of the Dealing Assistants too. This is too much to expect perfection
      from them, particularly when they are working to their maximum capacity
      even during the pandemic. The cases are being listed. It could not be
      said that there was an inordinate delay in listing the matters in view of
      the defects. The Court functioned during the lockdown, the cases were
G     scanned and listed by the Registry. The staff of this Court is working
      despite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic, and several
      of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers, have suffered due to Covid-19.
      During such a hard time, it was not expected of the petitioner who is an
      officer of this Court to file such a petition to demoralize the Registry of
H     this Court instead of recognizing the task undertaken by them even during
      pandemic and lockdown period.
   REEPAK KANSAL v. SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME                                467
       COURT OF INDIA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

       18. We see, in general, it has become a widespread practice to         A
blame the Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as many petitions
are filed with defects, and defects are not cured for years together. A
large number of such cases were listed in the recent past before the
Court for removal of defects which were pending for years. In such
situation, when the pandemic is going on, baseless and reckless allegations
                                                                              B
are made against the Registry of this Court, which is part and parcel of
the judicial system. We take judicial notice of the fact that such evil is
also spreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamed
unnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be remembered by worthy
lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; they are officers of
the Court and are a class apart in the society. Regarding exemplary           C
behaviorfrom members of noble profession in R. Muthukrishnanv. The
Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Writ
Petition (C) No.612 of 2016 the Court observed concerning the
expectation from gentlemen lawyers, thus:
      “23. The role of Lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery      D
      of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain
      the high standard. His duty is to the court to his own client, to the
      opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counsel
      also. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper
      for him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class of the
      society and a member of the noble profession, the expectation           E
      from him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society.
      People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system
      and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants
      repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information.
      They put their signatures wherever asked by a Lawyer. An                F
      advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that
      untainted justice delivered to his cause.
      24. The high values of the noble profession have to be protected
      by all concerned at all costs and in all the circumstances cannot
      be forgotten even by the youngsters in the fight of survival in         G
      formative years. The nobility of legal profession requires an
      Advocate to remember that he is not over attached to any case
      as Advocate does not win or lose a case, real recipient of justice
      is behind the curtain, who is at the receiving end. As a matter of
      fact, we do not give to a litigant anything except recognizing his
                                                                              H
468      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     rights. A litigant has a right to be impartially advised by a lawyer.
      Advocates are not supposed to be money guzzlers or ambulance
      chasers. A Lawyer should not expect any favour from the Judge
      and should not involve by any means in influencing the fair decision-
      making process. It is his duty to master the facts and the law and
      submit the same precisely in the Court, his duty is not to waste the
B
      Courts’ time.
      25. It is said by Alexander Cockburn that “the weapon of the
      advocate is the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin”.
      It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from a
      Judge. He must rely on the precedents, read them carefully and
C     avoid corruption and collusion of any kind, not to make false
      pleadings and avoid twisting of facts. In a profession, everything
      cannot be said to be fair even in the struggle for survival. The
      ethical standard is uncompromisable. Honesty, dedication and hard
      work is the only source towards perfection. An Advocate conduct
D     is supposed to be exemplary. In case an Advocate causes disrepute
      of the Judges or his colleagues or involves himself in misconduct,
      that is the most sinister and damaging act which can be done to
      the entire legal system. Such a person is definitely deadwood and
      deserves to be chopped off.
E     xxx
      40. The Bar Council has the power to discipline lawyers and
      maintain nobility of profession and that power imposes great
      responsibility. The Court has the power of contempt and that lethal
      power too accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is a
F     weapon like Brahmasatra to be used sparingly to remain effective.
      At the same time, a Judge has to guard the dignity of the Court
      and take action in contempt and in case of necessity to impose
      appropriate exemplary punishment too. A lawyer is supposed to
      be governed by professional ethics, professional etiquette and
      professional ethos which are a habitual mode of conduct. He has
G     to perform himself with elegance, dignity and decency. He has to
      bear himself at all times and observe himself in a manner befitting
      as an officer of the Court. He is a privileged member of the
      community and a gentleman. He has to mainsail with honesty and
      sail with the oar of hard word, then his boat is bound to reach to
H     the bank. He has to be honest, courageous, eloquent, industrious,
      witty and judgmental.
      REEPAK KANSAL v. SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME                                 469
          COURT OF INDIA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

         76. Soul searching is absolutely necessary and the blame game            A
         and maligning must stop forthwith. Confidence and reverence and
         positive thinking is the only way. It is pious hope that the Bar
         Council would improve upon the function of its disciplinary
         committees so as to make the system more accountable, publish
         performance audit on the disciplinary side of various bar councils.
                                                                                  B
         The same should be made public. The Bar Council of India under
         its supervisory control can implement good ideas as always done
         by it and would not lag behind in cleaning process so badly required.
         It is to make the profession more noble and it is absolutely necessary
         to remove the black sheeps from the profession to preserve the
         rich ideals of Bar and on which it struggled for the values of           C
         freedom. It is basically not for the Court to control the Bar. It is
         the statutory duty of Bar to make it more noble and also to protect
         the Judges and the legal system, not to destroy the Bar itself by
         inaction and the system which is important pillar of democracy.”
                                                         (emphasis supplied)      D
       19. In Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC
156,it was observed:
         “24.…… In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India1, this Court
         has observed that in a petition filed under Article 32 in the form of
         PIL attempt of mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court          E
         and also against the other constitutional institutions indulged in by
         an advocate in a careless manner, meaningless and as
         contradictory pleadings, clumsy allegations, contempt was ordered
         to be drawn. The Registry was directed not to entertain any PIL
         petition of the petitioner in future.”                                   F
         25. In R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court2 this Court observed
         that there could be ways in which conduct and action of malefactor
         was professional misconduct. The purity of the court proceedings
         has to be maintained. The Court does not only have the right but
         also an obligation to protect itself and can bar the malefactor from     G
         appearing before the Court for an appropriate period of time. There
         is a duty cast upon an advocate to protect the dignity of this Court
         not to scandalize the very institution as observed in the said
         decision.”
1
    (1988) 3 SCC 255
2
    (2009) 8 SCC 106                                                              H
470                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A            20. We expect members of the noble fraternity to respect
      themselves first.They are an intellectual class of the society. What may
      be proper for others may still be improper for them,the expectations
      from them is to be exemplary to the entire society, then only the dignity
      of noble profession and judicial system can be protected. The Registry
      is nothing butan arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is
B
      equally respected and responsible part of the integral system, Registry is
      part and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and
      mutual reverence. We also expect from the Registry to work efficiently
      and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the lawyers also to
      remove the defects effectively and not to unnecessarily cast aspersions
C     on the system.
             21. Thus, we find no ground to entertain the petition. We expect
      the petitioner to be more careful and live up to the dignity of theprofession
      which it enjoys.
             22. We dismiss the petition and impose cost of Rs.100/- (Rupees
D     One Hundred only) on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibility
      towards noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such a
      petition.


      Ankit Gyan                                             Writ Petition dismissed.
E




F




G




H