Whether Registry Can Exercise Judicial Powers To Decide Maintainability Of Petitions?

 The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal
system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which
invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which
separates administrative and judicial function is the duty
and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus
be defined as the process of considering the proposal,

opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on
consideration of facts and circumstances according to the
rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five
judges in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs.
Lakshmichand and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 677, formulated
the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or an
act is judicial function or not, in the following manner(
1) it is in substance a determination upon
investigation of a question by the application
of objective standards to facts found in the
light of preexisting
legal rule;
(2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties
obligations affecting their civil rights; and
(3) that the investigation is subject to certain
procedural attributes contemplating an
opportunity of presenting its case to a party,
ascertainment of facts by means of evidence
if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the
dispute be on question of law on the
presentation of legal argument, and a decision
resulting in the disposal of the matter on
findings based upon those questions of law
and fact.
(emphasis added)
The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative.
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 indicates
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.
10. 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. Accordingly, the Madras High
Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place
it before an appropriate bench.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CRL.) No. 1832 of 2019
P. SURENDRAN  Vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Dated:March 29, 2019

N. V. RAMANA, J.,

Print Page

Whether allegations made against registry constitute contempt of court?

 The contempt jurisdiction is not only to protect the reputation of the concerned Judge so that he can administer Justice fearlessly and fairly, but also to protect "the fair name of the judiciary". The protection in a manner of speaking, extends even to the Registry in the performance of its task and false and unfair allegations which seek to impede the working of the Registry and thus the administration of Justice, made with oblique motives cannot be tolerated. In such a situation in order to uphold the honor and dignity of the institution, the Court has to perform the painful duties which we are faced with in the present proceedings. Not to do so in the words of P.B. Sawant, J. in Sanjiv Dutta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In re, MANU/SC/0697/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 619 would -

The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the Courts the unpleasant duty. We say no more.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2017

Decided On: 17.08.2017

 In Re: Mohit Chaudhary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.S. Khehar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 16 SCC 78

Print Page