Supreme Court says probe needed into ‘serious’ allegation of Registry misplacing case records

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, took strong exception to the allegation that the Registry had misplaced a case file on a plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order, observing that such “inefficiency” warranted an investigation.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana made this observation after advocate Shubhi Shivani Ahmed informed the court that the file pertaining to the appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s April 27, 2026 order rejecting her client’s early bail plea was allegedly misplaced by the administrative wing of the apex court.

“The special permit petition was submitted on June 8. However, it has not been registered in the registry until now,” he said. Ms Ahmed also informed the Panel that she had written to the relevant Registrar seeking clarification but had not received any response.

The Chief Justice observed that the allegation cannot be brushed aside and needs to be examined thoroughly.

“It is a very serious situation that the Registry has lost the file. If the Registry is misplacing files on urgent matters, do you think I will refer the matter to the list? I should do more. Please give me the details. I want to investigate the reason for this inefficiency, what is the reason behind it and who is responsible for it,” he said.

The Chief Justice also asked Ms Ahmed to ask the advocate on record (AoR) who filed the petition to file a formal complaint and provide details of the incident.

“Ask your AoR to file a complaint with me today. I am available. He can do it in his rooms or at my house. Give me the details of the case,” he said.

Repeated examples

This is not the first time CJI Kant has raised concerns over the functioning of the Registry.

He harshly rebuked the administrative wing in May, calling the behavior of its officials “disgusting” and stating that some of them considered themselves the “super Chief Justice of India”. His remarks came after the registrars questioned how they had concluded that the Board had failed to notify the Enforcement Directorate and other defendants about an earlier matter.

In March, the Chief Justice had also expressed concerns over the functioning of the Registry after a public interest litigation (PIL) last heard in February 2025 was listed for hearing after more than a year. He had then sought a report from the Registrar regarding the delay.

The Chief Justice had previously stated that “reforms” were needed in the functioning of the Registry and observed that he would “fail in his duty” if he did not make such reforms during his tenure.

“Registrars think they’ve been here for 20 years… and while they’re permanent, we’re all in transition. They think the registry should work the way they want it to,” he said in February.

The Supreme Court Registry operates under Article 146 of the Constitution and operates under the general control of the Chief Secretary, who reports to the CJI. The Registry is responsible for the administration of court records, listing of cases, and compliance with procedural requirements. It consists of a hierarchy of civil servants that includes registrars, additional registrars, assistant registrars and branch officers.