Kerala High Court Orders Constitution Of Committee To Vet Registry's Standard Checklist For Scrutiny Of Newly Filed Cases

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a suo motu Judicial Practice and Procedure (JPP) initiated at the instance of the High Court Registry.

The Registry had sought directions from the Court following an order by a Single Judge directing the Registry to ensure that all applications for substituted service by newspaper publications must mention the name and edition of newspaper in which publication is sought for the application to be numbered.

The Registry felt that since this order amounted to a general guideline regarding future applications, there was a need to amend the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 or to issue an Office Memorandum.

The Division Bench agreed with the view and felt that the direction of the Single Judge needed to be formalised. It noted that the 1971 Rules and the Office Memoranda issued under the directions of the Chief Justice guides the Registry in this regard.

It also observed that the Rules are amended by a consultative procedure and the Committee in charge of framing the Rules examines the issue, and thereafter, the matter is placed before the Chief Justice and the Full Court where all judges get an opportunity to discuss the change. Only then is the proposed draft Rule notified and final notification issued.

Following the direction to report regarding the existence of any standardised checklist for scrutiny of filing, the Registry had reported that there is no such checklist at present and that defects are noted by the Filing Scrutiny Officers (FSOs) based on various Office Memoranda and judicial orders issued.

Thereupon, the Registry was directed to prepare a compilation of the Office Memoranda and judicial directions. After examining the compilation prepared by the Registry, the Court opined that some of these needed further deliberation.

It highlighted the desirability of having a Standard Checklist that would be beneficial to both the Registry and the advocates/litigants. However, it felt that the checklist needed to be settled and it has to be decided whether this settled checklist can be incorporated as an appendix to the Rules or implemented as an Office Memorandum.

It observed:

“A Committee, comprising learned Judges and assisted by the concerned Registrars, can be constituted to examine and vet the Standard Checklist with reference to the existing Rules and the prevailing legal position. Upon completion of its exercise, the Committee can recommend whether the Standard Checklist should be issued by way of an Office Memorandum or incorporated into the Rules of 1971. Thereafter, the Standard Checklist is notified on the website of the Court and also integrated into the auto-scrutiny program, under the guidance of the Computerisation Committee.”

The Court then went on to direct the Registry to place the matter on the administrative side for directions to constitute the Committee and regarding further steps to be taken.

Thus, it disposed of the JPP.

Case No: JPP No. 2 of 2025

Case Title: Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676

Counsel for the respondent: V. Manu – Special Government Pleader, V. Tekchand – Senior Government Pleader

Amicus Curiae: K.B. Pradeep

Click to Read/Download Judgment

Click to Read/Download Order In IA No. 1/2025 in MFA(ECC) No. 9 of 2012