News By/Courtesy: Sharad Agnihotri | 06 Apr 2019 19:19pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Supreme Court has held that the High Court registry cannot decide maintainability of petitions which requires judicial application of mind.
  • The case involved challenge to the Madras High Court Registry which had refused numbering of a Anticipatory Bail petition and dismissed it on the issue of the maintainability.
  • The Court ruled 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.

The Supreme Court has held that the High Court registry cannot decide maintainability of petitions which requires judicial application of mind. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a special leave petition (P. Surendran vs. State) challenging the action of Madras High Court Registry which had refused numbering of a Anticipatory Bail petition and dismissed it on the issue of the maintainability in view of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The issue considered by the Apex 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. While hearing the plea, the court sought the views of the Attorney General who submitted that in the light of the inclusion of Section 18A under the SC/ST Act, appropriate bench has to adjudicate the matter as the same is a judicial function. He opined that the registry of the Madras High Court could not have refused to number the anticipatory bail application on the ground of maintainability.

The court further observed, "The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicate at 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, 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, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry."

Section Editor: Shreyashi Tiwari | 06 Apr 2019 19:24pm IST


Tags : #SupremeCourt #Registry #HighCourt #Maintainability #Petition #JudicialPower

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.