NEW DELHI, In a rare and stinging rebuke of its back office, the Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Supreme Court’s Registry, calling its conduct “bad” and saying its officials believed they were acting “like India’s supreme chief justice.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi made this observation while hearing the bail application filed by Ayushi Mittal alias Ayushi Agarwal, an accused in an alleged investment scam amounting to over $37,000 Crores.
The CJI referred to a March 23 order on the petition and asked how the registry officials explained that the bench had not issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and other respondents on the petition.
“The record is very badly behaved,” the CJI said, adding: “The record is very bad… Every person sitting here considers himself the Chief Justice of India.”
“No notice has been issued to the Director of the ED that no such order has been issued. Let the Judicial Registrar conduct a fact-finding inquiry as to how our order of March 23 does not mean notice to the ED. Let the notice be given to the Enforcement Directorate,” the bench said in its fresh order.
The petitioner accuses Ayushi Mittal, her husband and their company of orchestrating a massive investment scam.
While the defense claims that a major chunk of the money has been returned to investors, several hundred crore rupees remain in bank accounts currently frozen by the CEO.
In its March 23 order, the bench allowed oral prayer by counsel for the Rajasthan government, which is a party to the case, to make the ED a party to the proceedings.
The purpose was to determine whether all movable and immovable assets belonging to the petitioner and her extended family had been properly attached.
The court reiterated that it would not consider the merits of the bail application until a “comprehensive description” of the assets was provided.
The petitioner’s legal representative was ordered to submit a comprehensive declaration containing details of the immovable properties owned by the petitioner, her husband, their children, parents, siblings and her husband’s parents.
It also requested details of assets of the company’s directors, directors and key employees.
“Until these full details are provided, we will not consider the bail application on its merits,” the bench said.
The Judicial Registry was assigned to investigate the administrative lapse within the Registry to identify the reasons for ignoring the court’s previous instructions.
The bench said it would list the petition sometime in May.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
