135th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra46826530552116476 Tamil Nadu2734602148154461 Andhra Pradesh1864611043541681 Karnataka151449746792804 Delhi1402321261164044 Uttar Pradesh104388605581857 West Bengal83800589621846 Telangana7095850814576 Gujarat65704485612529 Bihar6203140760349 Assam4816233429115 Rajasthan4667932832732 Haryana3779631226448 Odisha3768124483258 Madhya Pradesh3508225414912 Kerala279561629988 Jammu and Kashmir2239614856417 Punjab1901512491462 Jharkhand140705199129 Chhatisgarh10109761369 Uttarakhand8008484795 Goa7075511460 Tripura5520367528 Puducherry4147253758 Manipur301818147 Himachal Pradesh2879171013 Nagaland24056594 Arunachal Pradesh179011053 Chandigarh120671520 Meghalaya9173305 Sikkim7832971 Mizoram5022820
Nation Current Affairs 06 Jul 2020 SC dismisses PIL tha ...

SC dismisses PIL that accused its registry of favouritism, imposes Rs 100 fine

Published Jul 6, 2020, 2:40 pm IST
Updated Jul 6, 2020, 2:40 pm IST
The PIL alleged that preference in listing of cases are being given to influential lawyers/petitioners
SC rejects plea alleging bias in listing of cases. (PTI Photo)
 SC rejects plea alleging bias in listing of cases. (PTI Photo)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea alleging bias in listing of cases by its registry officials and imposed a fine of Rs 100 on a lawyer for filing such a petition.

A bench comprising Arun Mishra and S A Nazeer said it was dismissing the PIL filed by lawyer Reepal Kansal and was imposing a cost of Rs 100 on him for filing such a petition.


Kansal said that due to technical glitches, the bench couldn't pronounce its judgement via video conference and apprised of its verdict telephonically.

The lawyer said that the court has held that the allegations had no basis.

The PIL alleged that preference in listing of cases are being given to influential lawyers/petitioners.

The top court, on June 19, had reserved its verdict on the PIL seeking a direction to its registry officials not to give preferences to cases filed by influential advocates or litigants in listing before benches at the challenging times when virtual courts are functioning due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic.


During the hearing, the top court had expressed unhappiness over the plea saying the apex court's registry has been working "day-and-night" for the benefit of litigants as well as advocates.

"The registry is working day-and-night for you people this has become a trend," the bench had said.

The plea had also sought a direction to the apex court's Secretary General and other officials to stop discrimination against not-so-influential lawyers.

The plea said there was no mechanism to address complaints against erring officers of the registry who favour some law firms/advocates for reasons best known to them.


It also sought direction to the officials concerned not to point out unnecessary defects in cases of ordinary advocates/petitioners and refund the excess court fee and other charges.

Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi