Registry cannot exercise judicial powers that are in the realm of the Court, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Registry of a court cannot exercise judicial powers and decide on the maintainability of a petition. In the process, it quashed an order of Madras High Court Registry which had rejected the numbering of a petition..The Bench of Justices NV Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar stressed the difference between administrative and judicial functions and held that deciding on the maintainability of a petition requires a judicial application of mind whereas the Registry is entitled to exercise only administrative duties. The power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, the Court held..Facts.The petitioner, in this case, was charged with offences under the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner approached the District and Sessions Court with a plea for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Judge. He then moved the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail. The High Court Registry, however, refused to number the same on the ground that it was not maintainable..The petitioner answered the objections raised by the registry but his plea was dismissed by the Registry nevertheless..Question of Law and stance of Attorney General .The petitioner thus approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Madras High Court Registry..The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Madras High Court Registry was wrong in not numbering the Anticipatory Bail Petition and as to whether consequent dismissal of the same on the issue of maintainability of the petition impinges on the judicial function of the High Court?.Noting the importance of the question, the Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India KK Venugopal..Attorney General KK Venugopal stated that the stance of the Registry of the Madras High Court in refusing to number the anticipatory bail application and not placing it before the appropriate bench was incorrect. He stated that in light of the subsequent amendment of 2018 to the SC/ST Act, particularly the inclusion of Section 18A under the SC/ST Act, appropriate bench has to adjudicate the matter as the same is a judicial function. Therefore, the registry of the Madras High Court cannot refuse to number the anticipatory bail application on the ground of maintainability..Verdict.The Court at the outset sought to differentiate between judicial functions and administrative functions:.“The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice.”.The Court placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmichand and Ors. which had formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or an act is a judicial function or not:.(1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of preexisting legal rule;.(2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights; and .(3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact..Applying the above to the instant case, the Court held that the act of numbering a petition is a purely administrative function while the objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry is in the nature of judicial function..“The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires a judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates an application of judicial mind. In this context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that the determination, in this case, is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering. “.Therefore, the Registry was not entitled to exercise such judicial power, the Court held and set aside the order of the Registry..“Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order,”.It also directed the Madras High Court registry to number the petition and place it before an appropriate Bench..Read the Judgement: