SC seeks records ensuring clarity in inter-court communication

In a recent order, a bench led by justice Surya Kant voiced its frustration with the top court registry over prolonged delays in receiving trial court records – an impediment in the timely disposal of cases.

The Supreme Court has instructed its registry to provide detailed records ensuring clarity on documents summoned from a high court or trial court, underlining the importance of effective inter-court communication in judicial proceedings and procedural accountability.

A view of the Supreme Court building in New Delhi on Tuesday. (Sanjay Sharma)

In a recent order, a bench led by justice Surya Kant voiced its frustration with the top court registry over prolonged delays in receiving trial court records – an impediment in the timely disposal of cases.

“The assistant registrar is directed that henceforth the communication sent by the registry of this Court be also specifically mentioned in the office report to apprise us as to what has been summoned from the high court/trial court,” ordered the bench, which also comprised justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Supreme Court’s directive came after it reviewed a report submitted by the registry on October 22 that the bench found “cryptic and evasive”. The report did not specify if the high court or trial court had been contacted to submit trial records, as per an initial order from July 18.

This gap in reporting, the court observed, might have resulted in incomplete submissions of essential records, impeding the case’s progress and prompting the bench to reiterate the importance of precise and comprehensive communication.

To address this, the bench ordered the assistant registrar in the top court to ensure that all future office reports explicitly indicate the communications sent, detailing exactly what documents have been requested from the relevant courts.

This enhanced documentation is aimed at enabling the Supreme Court to oversee the status of records in real time, preventing ambiguities that could lead to further delays and adjournments on account of non-receipt of essential records.

The bench was hearing final arguments in an appeal moved by a murder case convict against a guilty verdict and life term. In the wake of disagreements between the counsel of the two sides over exhibited evidence before the trial court, the bench on July 18 directed the registry to requisition the original trial records for clarity. However, despite a subsequent September 19 order reiterating this, the records received by October 22 remained incomplete, with essential items such as the order sheet still pending.