New Delhi:The Supreme Court said that the practice of filing a special leave petition (SLP) without a certified copy of the High Court's order or merely with a downloaded copy challenged before it, is in violation of the rules, and stressed that "it is high time that some sense of discipline is instilled so that the court is not taken for a ride".
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra said it has been a joint experience of the judges on the bench that in the vast majority of matters arising from the High Courts and placed before the court for decision, the special leave petitions are accompanied by applications seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the judgments and orders impugned in such petitions.
The bench, in an order passed on August 5, said invariably, so to say, the court accepts the statements made in such applications believing what have been stated therein as correct.
"This mild approach of the court has generated a sense of belief among litigants that they can get away scot-free even by making statements which are far from the truth. It is high time that some sense of discipline is instilled so that the court is not taken for a ride," said the bench.
The bench said regarding special leave petitions in criminal proceedings, Rule 3 of Order XXII of the Supreme Court Rules, 201, ordains that the petitions shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from. Similar provision is found in Rule 4 of Order XXI of the 2013 Rules for special leave petitions pertaining to civil matters, it added.
Rule 1 (19) of Order V of the 2013 Rules ordains that the registrar may exercise the powers of the court in relation to application for exemption from filing of certified copies of judgments, decrees, orders, certificates or orders granting certificate subject to the proviso. The proviso is that an application for exemption from filing of certified copy of the judgment or order accompanying a special leave petition shall be posted before the court along with the special leave petition.
The bench said: "We are minded to say that litigants, finding that the court is lenient in relation to matters, inter alia, concerning filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment and order, seldom apply for and obtain such copy….”.
The bench said it is common knowledge that a high percentage of special leave petitions come to be dismissed/disposed of on the first day of listing, without the petitioner actually filing such certified copy.
"Even, no undertaking is obtained from any litigant to file the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order as and when the same is furnished to him by the concerned Section/Department of the High Court," it added.
"We are pained to note that despite there being specific provisions in the 2013 Rules requiring a special leave petition to be accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order, such provisions are observed more in the breach," said the bench, adding that such a situation should not to be allowed to persist; so long the rules exist, there has to be substantial compliance.
The bench said even if the certified copy is not available on the date of presentation of a special leave petition, proof of application for such copy has to be adduced for the court to consider the prayer for exemption.
The top court made it mandatory from August 20, 2024, for all the litigants who proposed to file special leave petitions on civil and criminal side without the certified copy of the judgment order passed by the High Court, to submit an acknowledgement that they had applied for such copies along with an undertaking to place such judgment on record in future.
The apex court made these observations while dealing with a judgment and order dated August 5, 2021, where the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the petitioners. The High Court was of the opinion that the respondent in the said application as the complainant had approached the jurisdictional magistrate with a complaint under Section 200, Cr. P.C., he ought to be permitted to adduce evidence before charge is framed for arriving at a proper finding regarding the allegations.
This SLP dated 25th June, 2024 was presented on 11th July, 2024. Since the special leave petition was barred by time by 774 days, the petitioners applied for condonation of delay and the petitioners also applied for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order. The SLP was considered by the court on 29th July, 2024.
"On that day, sensing that something was amiss, we made an order requiring the petitioners to file an application to bring on record document(s) in support of the statement made in paragraph…”, said the bench.
