In an interesting instance, Supreme Court is set to examine whether it can issue directions on administrative side to the High Courts or not.
The issue has been raised by the Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal and a Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarthna has said that the Apex Court shall analyse the 'larger issue' raised by the AG.
Previously, while dealing with matter concerning to delay in deciding the matters related to commercial disputes in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court has called for formation of Special Arrears Committee.
In the affidavit now filed by the Allahabad High Court, it has been reported that approximately 40,000 Execution Petitions are pending in the State of U.P. It was further being reported that now the execution petitions are distributed among the Judicial Officers and a judicial officer would have an average of 47 such cases before himself or herself, apart from judicial work.
The Court was informed that between 01.05.2022 and 04.07.2022, 9678 Execution Petitions and 1373 Petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have been disposed of. It was also reported that the cases are transferred to the Additional District Judges in terms of Civil Laws (U.P. Amendment Act) 2019 and the distribution of the work has taken place in the month of May, 2022 itself.
The AG during the hearing argued that the Top Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions on administrative side to the High Courts. To this, the Court remarked that the present is not an adversarial litigation at all and the High Court ought not to have and should not have taken the same as a prestige or ego issue.
Stating that the Court shall deliberate on the matter raised by the AG later on, it was being noted:
"Only in a case where the High Court has failed to perform its duty and/or monitoring/supervision and even it can be seen that before this Court intervened, as such, no serious efforts were made by the High Court on administrative side to see that commercial cases are disposed of at the earliest, that is why this Court was required to intervene."
The Court has further asked High Court to file the fresh status report on the pendency of the matters relating to commercial disputes in the State and/or further progress.
The High Court was also requested to place on record the number of posts of Judicial Officers vacant and whether regularly the appointments are made as per the directions issued by this Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors, 2006 Latest Caselaw 167 SC,
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments