NEW DELHI: The Patna High Court Registrar General office and a certain section of the Patna High Court lawyers have moved the Patna High Court seeking nixing of a CBI inquiry that was ordered by the same High Court to investigate into alleged illegalities being carried out by the registry office due to which cases are either listed “prematurely” or are “delayed”.
This is for the first time in the history of the Patna High Court that the office of the Registrar General and a section of lawyers have filed petitions against the order of its own judges to resist a CBI probe ordered by them.
If the CBI inquiry is allowed to take place and not nixed, legal experts said, it will lead to unearthing of similar practices across India and thereby make the whole process more transparent to the benefit of the litigants and lawyers alike. It would, according to experts, also lead to opening of can of worms as manipulating of “listing” of cases before the judges was very “common” in all courts across the country.
On 24 October, the double bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar, who has since been transferred to Andhra Pradesh and Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court, while hearing a case, had directed a CBI inquiry into the whole process of listing of the case after it emerged that the registry officials had been committing irregularities when it came to listing of cases.
“Such irregularities, rather illegalities, have been noticed almost in all types of cases viz. Civil Writ, Criminal Writ, Criminal Appeal (D.B.), Criminal Miscellaneous, L.P.A. etc. On the administrative side too, on a number of occasions, oral complaints were made regarding disparity in conducting Stamp reporting. On last occasion, orally in this matter, the Registrar General was requested to appear in High Court and he was asked to conduct an inquiry. Today in High Court, when the case was called out, the Registrar General was summoned and he submitted that show-cause notice was issued and an explanation has been received in which the office concerned has submitted that due to inadvertence such mistake was committed,” the court had said in its judgment on 24 October.
“Had it been an isolated case, the matter would have been different, but in a number of cases, it has been noticed that Stamp reporting is unnecessarily delayed and, in certain cases, despite apparent defects, the same are not being pointed out and hurriedly cases are being placed before the Bench. Meaning thereby that in Stamp reporting, disparity is continuing. Besides directing the Registrar General to inquire into such irregularities in a number of cases, at least in three cases recently, the Registrar General has been directed to examine and conduct inquiry,” the court stated while giving example of three cases that showed how irregularities had been committed by the registry office in the recent past.
While ordering a CBI inquiry, Justice Rakesh Kumar also asked the agency to look into the officials responsible and the intended beneficiaries (obviously lawyers and litigants) and listed the case for further hearing on 6 January 2020 by which time it was expected that the CBI would have completed its preliminary inquiry.
Justice Rakesh Kumar was sworn in as judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court on 8 November. The 24 October judgment reads: “In such a situation, an inference can be drawn that something is going wrong in the Stamp Reporting section, which is not being controlled by higher officials of this Court. With a view to repose confidence of the litigants and advocates in the judicial system, it would be necessary to nip such irregularities / illegalities at the bud stage itself, and as such, for ensuring consistency in Stamp reporting of cases, it would be desirable to direct for conducting a deep rooted inquiry by an expert, competent and independent investigating agency. Accordingly, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through Superintendent of Police, Patna, is directed to conduct an inquiry in the matter. While conducting inquiry, the CBI may examine as to how many cases were filed since at least last two months prior to this order and in how many cases disturbing the seriatim (in regular order), Stamp reporting was done and in how many cases, even ignoring apparent defects or without pointing out such defects, the matters were placed before the Bench. While conducting inquiry, the CBI would be at liberty to enquire/ investigate to trace misconduct on the part of the officer(s), conduit and beneficiaries. If during inquiry, materials are collected showing commission of cognizable offense, in that event, without any prior permission of this Court, CBI would be at liberty to register a regular case (FIR)”.
However, once Justice Kumar—who was in news for speaking out against the alleged corruption in the Patna High Court and his remarks against “his fellow brother judges”—was transferred, members of three separate lawyers’ associations, claiming to represent the entire lawyers’ community and the Registrar General office of the Patna High Court, moved an application seeking “modification/recall” of the CBI inquiry that was ordered by Justice Rakesh Kumar and Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan.
This is not for the first time that an order of Justice Rakesh Kumar seeking a CBI inquiry into allegations of corruption is being challenged. On 28 August, Justice Rakesh had ordered for a CBI inquiry into allegations of rampant corruption in lower judiciary and judicial probe into conditions leading to granting of bail to scam-accused retired IAS officer K.P. Ramaiah. That order was nixed the next day after hearing by a special 11-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi.
After the 28 August order, Kumar had virtually turned into a “pariah” in the corridors of the Patna High Court with no judges mingling with him. He was not even given a farewell as is the custom either by the High Court administration or by the lawyers’ association.
The CBI inquiry ordered by judges of the Patna High Court in the past has led to unraveling of many serious crimes, including fodder scam, Srijan scam and Muzaffarpur shelter home scam.
Purushottam Das, senior lawyer and vice president of the largest association of lawyers of the Patna High Court, Advocates Association, rued that lawyers and officials were resisting the CBI inquiry. “There is a lot of malpractice going on. The sad part is that lawyers along with registry officials are resisting it. Justice Rakesh Kumar gave three opportunities to the registry office to rectify things on their own, but when it did not happen, he was forced to order the CBI inquiry. Why are people objecting to it? It should be welcomed. Those who are objecting to it are damaging their own credibility,” he said.