Supreme Court 
News

Supreme Court refrains from taking action against Registry for premature listing of bail plea

The Court observed that the concerned Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar had accepted their mistake in bypassing a previous court order while listing the plea for an earlier date.

Abhimanyu Hazarika

The Supreme Court on Monday chose not to take action against its Registry staff after the concerned officers admitted to mistakenly listing a bail application in a money-laundering case ahead of schedule [Zeeshan Haider v. Enforcement Directorate].

A Division Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih observed that the concerned Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar had accepted their mistake in bypassing a previous court order and listing the plea for an earlier date.

"We have perused the report by the registry. The concerned Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar have accepted that by ignoring that one of the petitions was already listed on (so and so date), prayer was made to CJI to list both together. Since mistake has been accepted, no action is called for," the Court said.

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

The case, originally scheduled for October 14, was listed prematurely on September 20, raising concerns of potential manipulation of case listings before the top court.

The Court had earlier directed the Registry to explain the irregularity, calling the incident "unacceptable" and demanding a report on the matter.

However, after reviewing the report, the Bench noted that the error was due to a prayer made to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to list two related petitions together, without considering the original hearing date of one of the petitions.

The matter concerns a man accused in a money-laundering case in which Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan is the main accused.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has claimed that Khan purchased immovable properties in the name of benamidars, that is, Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, both accused persons, by concealing and suppressing the actual amount paid.

Can NCLAT refer split verdicts to a third member? Supreme Court to consider

Reward to informer of GST evasion discretionary, cannot be claimed as right: Delhi High Court

Give details of video on CJI Gavai if you want FIR info: Punjab & Haryana High Court to Ajeet Bharti

Murder convict dies after waiting 9 years for appeal hearing despite Supreme Court’s directive to expedite case

Gurinder & Partners acquires Sports law firm Law Caddie

SCROLL FOR NEXT