Gujarat High Court Deletes Single Judge's Remarks Against Registry Over Delay In Installing CCTVs, Cites Lack Of Authority

The Gujarat High Court has ordered deletion of strictures passed against its Registry by a single judge over delay in implementing its earlier directions for installation of CCTV cameras in "every corner of the Registry" as well as "important places" in the high court campus. 

The court further stayed the monitoring of the issue by the single judge, while observing that he lacked the authority to direct the Registry on the issue as the exclusive domain lies with the administrative control of the high court's Chief Justice. 

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by the Registrar (IT department) of the high court, against the single judge's August 18 order expressing concern with the delay in installation of CCTV cameras, remarking that the same can be equated to "red tapism".

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachchani in its order observed:

"Thus, on an overall assessment of the issue, though, we commend the concern expressed by the learned Single Judge relating to the issue of installation of the CCTV cameras, with due respect, we hold that the learned Single Judge in his judicial capacity lacks the authority to command the Registry in any way on the issue, which exclusively lies under the domain and control of The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, as doing so would go against the authority, control and supremacy of The Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The puisne Judges cannot encroach on the supremacy of the Chief Justice, when it comes to administrative control, regulation and functions of the Registry and its staff, unless it is specifically delegated or assigned to a Judge or Committee on Administrative Side by the Chief Justice".

The bench remarked that the administrative functions of different departments/Registry of the High Court significantly contribute towards maintaining the majesty, grandeur and repute of the High Court.

It said that such standards can only be achieved by reposing full faith in the High Court's Chief Justice, and any act or issue which bristles with such authority can always be sorted out on the Administrative Side.

The bench noted that the Single Judge, who was assigned the roster of service matters, while examining the group of writ petitions relating to service jurisprudence, had passed the order under challenge, "casting aspersions on the functioning of the Registry". 

"Hence, the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition is quashed and set aside. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice is already apprised of the status of installation of CCTV cameras in the Registry of the High Court, and the same is under active implementation. The strictures passed against the Registry are directed to be deleted. We hereby stay further monitoring by the learned Single Judge on the issue of installation of the CCTV cameras in the Registry in Special Criminal Application No.996 of 2020," the bench added. 

The bench further said that from the single judge's order it was manifest that the work of installation of the CCTV cameras is undertaken and is presently going-on.

The bench noted that the plea, in which the initial order was passed, was not listed along with the captioned writ petitions, and the cause has been pursued by amalgamating different writ petitions "having distinct jurisdiction and roster".

The bench while examining the group of writ petitions relating to service disputes of teachers, noted that the Single Judge has referred to an order passed in a 2020 criminal quashing petition, wherein its appeared that the court had in 2023 taken cognizance about the absence of CCTV cameras in certain parts of the Registry of this Court. Though the quashing aspect was disposed of the criminal plea was kept pending for monitoring the installation. 

"Thus, the learned Single Judge, by passing the impugned order, has travelled beyond the roster assigned by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. We may at this stage, deal with the scope of administrative control of the Chief Justice of the High Court.The Supreme Court, in the case of H igh Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr., (1998) 3 S.C.C. 72 has emphasized on the power and status of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India..." the bench said referring to the Supreme Court's order. 

Allowing the appeal, the bench further clarified that the the writ petition may be listed before the concerned roster Bench and be heard. 

Case title: HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT v/s  BABUBHAI SAMPATBHAI PATELIYA & ORS

LPA NO. 1035 of 2025 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23158 of 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 138