NDLI: Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India Advocate Art. 32
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	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 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 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 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 – 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 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 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 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 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 449
Petitioner	Reepak Kansal
Respondent	Secretary General, & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 459
Judgement Date	2020-07-06
Case Number	541

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Rachna & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Anil Yadav. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

Common Case (a Regd. Society) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Swaraj Abhiyan and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Vikram Dhillon Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Reepak Kansal Vs. Union of India and Others

Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors.

Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.

Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Rachna & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Anil Yadav. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

Common Case (a Regd. Society) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Swaraj Abhiyan and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Vikram Dhillon Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Reepak Kansal Vs. Union of India and Others

Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors.

Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.