Yesterday, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Court Registry for removing a matter from its records. It has requested a detailed explanation from the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court regarding the reasons for this deletion.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal was scheduled to hear the service matter in Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh (item no. 103). However, the court was informed that the matter had been delisted.

Upon reviewing the reasons for the delisting, the Court promptly ordered the summoning of the Registry Officials. A visibly frustrated Justice Maheshwari questioned the authority of the Registry to remove a matter that was scheduled to be heard before the Court.

Justice Maheshwari said: "I am fed up of this...We seek an explanation from the Secretary-General."

The bench directed that the case would proceed as scheduled and instructed the parties to appear before the Court. While the petitioners indicated their readiness to argue the case, one of the respondents' counsels was absent from the courtroom.

Advocate for one of the petitioners, Manish Kumar Saran informed the court: "I must say, we are ready. We have some problems because the State has communicated to me that they are not ready in view of this elimination."

Justice Maheshwari promptly ordered that the arguing counsel must be present in court.

Another advocate for the respondent requested: "I am requesting an adjournment. Your Lordship may have it next week."

Justice Maheshwari remarked: "Why? Why? It is a part-heard matter. Listed for hearing today. How can we adjourn for one week? A date was given by judicial order." Justice Maheshwari further stated: "We are seeing, whenever this case is coming, we have passed orders. We know the [matter] will take some time. It will be dissolved once forever. Right or wrong. Let it go. Number of cases are pending for this reason."

Within minutes, Samir Ali Khan, the arguing counsel for the respondent, arrived. However, before the parties could proceed with the case, the court halted the proceedings to continue discussions with the Registry Officials. The bench then unexpectedly adjourned.

The court reconvened after a short break and resumed hearing the matter.