The Supreme Court’s administrative machinery came under scrutiny on Thursday, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant announcing that he would launch a “deeper probe” into the record to allow similar petitions to travel to different courts despite previous dismissals.
“If I do not achieve reform here before I leave office, I will fail in my duty,” the CJI said, in one of his strongest public rebukes on record yet, while signaling an administrative revolution ahead. Judge Kant is scheduled to retire in February 2027.
The remarks came after Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, who is representing the Uttar Pradesh government in the case, submitted before the court an order clarifying that a similar plea had earlier been dismissed by a three-judge bench. The CJI, visibly upset, said he would launch a “deeper investigation” into how the matter was listed again.
“Let me examine this on the administrative side… How was the case listed. This is the problem when you divide this court into different benches… It is a matter of concern… When one bench expresses its opinion, how does this case move to another bench?”, said the IJC, chairing the bench, which also includes Justices Joymalia Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi.
Judge Kant added that he was “shocked” by what he recently discovered about the workings of the registry. He added: “Registry officials think they’ve been here for 20 years… and we’re all in transit and they’re permanent. They think the registry should work the way they want it to.”
The bench was hearing a petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, on the grounds that it contravenes Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023. Senior advocate Shoaib Alam appeared for the petitioner.
A similar petition filed by Siraj Ahmed Khan is pending before a bench of Justices JP Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan. It is in this background that the petitioner in the present case, Irfan Solanki, sought to mark his petition with the issue pending.
However, ASG Nataraj pointed out that a similar challenge had been rejected earlier, not once but twice, since 2022.
In this regard, Alam sought to withdraw the petition if the court was not inclined to include it with the other matter pending before the bench of Justice Pardiwala or admit it, but the CJD insisted that it remain on board. Alam was also asked to help the bench.
