The Chief Justice of India on Wednesday took a serious view of a complaint alleging that the Supreme Court Registry had misplaced a case file, preventing an urgent matter from being registered and listed before the Court.
Taking a stern view of the submission, CJI Kant warned that accountability would be fixed if the allegation was found to be true."If our registry is misplacing urgent files, then do you think I will leave it at that? I will have to take it up and see who is to blame," he said.
The issue was raised by counsel Shubhi Shivani Jaideep, who informed the Bench that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed on June 8 had still not been registered. “SLP was filed on 8th June, however it has not been registered by the Registry till date. We have written a representation to the Registrar. The case file appears to have been misplaced at the end of the Registry and because of this it has not been listed before the Court,” the counsel submitted.
Seeking urgent intervention, the counsel requested the Court to direct the Registry to trace the file, re-register the matter and list it urgently. Responding, the CJI expressed concern over the allegation and said that if the Registry had indeed misplaced a file, it would warrant a deeper inquiry. “It is a very serious matter if the Registry has misplaced the file. If our Registry is misplacing files in urgent matters, then do you think I will only spare the matter by directing listing? I must do something more. Please give me the details. I would like to look into this inefficiency, what is the reason behind it,” the CJI remarked.
The Court directed that a formal complaint be immediately submitted by the Advocate-on-Record. "Please ask the Advocate on Record to submit the complaint to me either in my chamber now or at my residence. But give it today itself. I will take it up," added CJI Kant.The latest remarks come amid a series of instances in the recent months where the top court has expressed concern over the functioning of its Registry.
In May, a Bench led by CJI Kant had come down heavily on the Registry for failing to issue notice to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate despite a clear judicial direction. Terming the lapse “very nasty,” the Court had ordered a fact-finding inquiry by the Registrar (Judicial) to ascertain how its earlier order had been interpreted.In February 2026, CJI Kant had flagged irregularities after a petition that had been dismissed by a three-judge Bench resurfaced before another Bench. The Court had called the development "shocking."
Follow us
