High Court of Punjab and Haryana confronted on delayed court order dissemination, Supreme Court commands investigation into retrospectively dated ruling
The Supreme Court of India has taken notice of a delayed uploading of an anticipatory bail order by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and has ordered an inquiry into the matter. The case, known as Ajay Maini vs. State of Haryana & Ors., was heard by Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal along with advocates Ankit Sibbal, Rohitt Kumar Yadav, and Ashish Batra, stated that the order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea had not been uploaded on the High Court website. This prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Registrar General of the High Court on August 20.
The Supreme Court's concern was further heightened when it was observed that the circumstances suggested the order was not actually passed on July 31, as reflected on the High Court website. The Court has directed the collection of records from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to ascertain when the order was uploaded.
In addition, the stenographer book of the secretary of the judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was obtained to determine the date on which the judgment was drafted and uploaded. The steno book has been ordered to be seized to help establish the timeline of events.
The complainant was represented by a team of advocates, including Nipun Katyal, Suchakshu Jain, Madhakant Bhatia, Dhananjay Kumar, Surya Pratap Singh Rana, Manan Sharma, Rahul Sachdeva, and Shashank Shekhar. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was represented by advocates Kabir Hathi and Rahul Gupta.
The Supreme Court has granted interim protection to the petitioner, directing that no coercive steps be taken against him in the case. The Court has also issued a discreet inquiry to be held, and the report of the NIC regarding typing and uploading to be collected and filed on affidavit.
The Registrar General submitted a report on August 23, three days after seeking an explanation from the concerned High Court judge's secretary on August 22. The matter will be heard again after four weeks. The bench noted that the explanation did not clarify when the order was typed and finalised, which is a key aspect of the inquiry.
This case highlights the importance of timely and accurate uploading of court orders, which are crucial for maintaining transparency and ensuring the public's access to justice. The Supreme Court's action in ordering an inquiry underscores its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and accountability.
