In a rare move, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered an inquiry into its own functioning after discovering that a petition, directed to be listed in May 2022, had not been placed before any bench for over three years.
A bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi directed the Registrar (Listing) to conduct an immediate probe into the lapse and submit a report within two weeks, identifying the person responsible for the delay.
“This matter was last listed on May 13, 2022, when the court directed the registry to list this matter immediately after service is complete on the respondents. The office report indicates that the respondents (the State of Tamil Nadu and M Manikandan) were served on May 30, 2022,” the bench noted in its order.
It added: “We direct the Registrar (Listing) to hold an inquiry and submit a report in the chamber why the matter was not listed for three years and three months despite an order of the court. The inquiry should also indicate who is the person responsible.”
The petition in question challenges a July 2021 order of the Madras High Court granting conditional bail to former Tamil Nadu minister and AIADMK leader M Manikandan in a rape case.
{{/usCountry}}The petition in question challenges a July 2021 order of the Madras High Court granting conditional bail to former Tamil Nadu minister and AIADMK leader M Manikandan in a rape case.
{{/usCountry}}On May 13, 2022, a bench led by then Chief Justice NV Ramana, along with justices Maheshwari and Hima Kohli (since retired), had issued notice to the respondents on a special leave petition filed by the complainant, a Malaysian national. The bench had at that stage directed the registry to list the matter immediately after service of notice was complete.
According to the complaint, the woman alleged that she was in a live-in relationship with Manikandan for five years on the assurance of marriage. She claimed she became pregnant thrice during this period and was forced to undergo abortions, besides being subjected to threats that her private photographs would be made public if she pursued marriage or legal action.
Manikandan, who served as Information Technology minister in the previous AIADMK government, denied the allegations. During the proceedings before the high court, he alleged that the complaint was motivated by extortionist demands that he refused to accept. He maintained that the relationship was consensual. To be sure, in July 2022, the high court had quashed the criminal proceedings against the AIADMK leader after the woman settled the matter with Manikandan and withdrew her complaint.
The unusual development on Tuesday highlights the Supreme Court’s concern over procedural lapses in its own registry. Typically, once service of notice is complete, the case is automatically relisted before the appropriate bench. The delay of more than three years in this matter, despite explicit directions from the bench, has now prompted the court to seek accountability from its administrative wing.
The Registrar (Listing) has been asked to submit the inquiry report in chambers within two weeks, explaining the lapse and naming the officer responsible.
A case before the Supreme Court can be withdrawn only with the permission of the court. In the present matter, neither the complainant nor Manikandan ever approached the court for withdrawal, though the bench had directed in May 2022 that the registry list it after the notices were served — a step that was never followed since the case was not listed again. The court’s chief concern was the registry’s non-adherence to its explicit order for immediate listing once notice was served.