The internal inquiry ordered by outgoing Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit into registry officials allegedly delaying listings or deleting matters before different benches has exonerated the staff, saying there was no deliberate attempt to undermine judicial orders.

The court had earlier expressed concern over complaints from judges and members of the Bar that several matters officially listed before benches abruptly got deleted or delisted, and that some matters were not getting listed for over one-and-a-half years.

According to sources, the internal reports and the explanations offered by senior officials of the registry have led the Justice Lalit to conclude that no action is warranted against any official as the delay was on account of bona fide mistakes and not any mischief or deliberate lapses.

So, Justice Lalit, who retired on Tuesday, decided not to take any disciplinary action, the sources said.

The sources said that Justice Lalit, after going through the report submitted by the registry, arrived at the conclusion that no action was necessitated as the deleting/ delisting had been done on account of confusion caused by multiple orders passed by different benches.

For instance, it was pointed out that some matters were listed on a particular day by the orders passed by the CJI during mentioning time. But thereafter the bench before which the particular matter was directed to be listed by the CJI also passed orders for listing on a different date.

In the process, it was pointed out, many matters get repeted on the daily list.

On such occasions the registry officials had no option but to delist/ delete some matters as on a given day a bench cannot handle more than 60-odd cases.

As a result, it was stated, some matters got delayed for several months and there was no intentional action by the registry officials to override judicial orders.

The clean chit comes against the backdrop of serious displeasure expressed earlier by judges of the Supreme Court over matters not getting listed despite their orders or abruptly getting “deleted” on the day of the hearing.

Besides a bench of Justices Lalit and Bela Trivedi, which passed two judicial orders seeking an explanation, three other benches headed by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi and M.R. Shah, respectively, had in open court expressed displeasure orally over the conduct of registry officials and possible bypassing of judicial orders.

Justice Rastogi, during one of the hearings, had warned registry officials of action if they continued to delete matters listed before the court.

“The registrar is not above our order. They are behaving as if they are running the court,” Justice Rastogi had observed.

CJI-designate Justice Chandrachud had expressed displeasure at matters getting abruptly deleted despite benches passing orders for their listing on a particular date.

Although the other judges had made oral observations, the bench of outgoing CJI Lalit and Justice Trivedi had passed two judicial orders on November 1 and 3 directing an internal probe by senior officials of the registry.

On November 1, during the hearing of a petition filed by R. Subramanian, the bench had noted that though the petitioner had challenged the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as being unconstitutional on August 4, 2021, it was not listed before the top court till October 21, 2022.

Finally, when the matter was listed on October 21, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw his petition “in view of certain developments which had occurred since the filing of the petition”.

Justice Lalit took exception to the unusual delay and passed a written judicial order saying: “…The matter which was ready to be listed was not listed before this Court for more than one and a half years.

To a pointed query whether the factum of pendency of the writ petition was utilised in any manner to have the pending contempt petition adjourned before the High Court, the petitioner-in-person has submitted that no such attempt at any juncture was made on behalf of the petitioner.

We record the statement.

“However, we issue notice to the Registry to file an explanation why the matter was not listed before the Court in a year and a half despite it had been ‘Ready’ to be listed. The Registry should also indicate whether any similar matters which were marked as ‘Ready’ but were not listed before the Court. All the details pertaining to such matters shall be furnished along with an explanation and if any remedial steps have since then been taken those steps must also be adverted to. Let the explanation be furnished on or before 03.11.2022. List for reporting compliance on 03.11.2022.”

The registry submitted a sealed-cover report on November 2.