In Rare Move, Supreme Court Directs Seizure Of High Court Judge's Secretary's Steno Book To Find Out When Order Was Uploaded
In an unusual development, the Supreme Court has ordered the seizure of the steno book of the Secretary of a High Court Judge to ascertain the date of uploading of an order.
The Court directed a "discreet inquiry" to find out when the order was typed, corrected and uploaded, and sought a report from the NIC (National Informatics Centre) regarding this.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed this unusual order after the Registrar General of the High Court could not exactly specify when the order was uploaded, since the Secretary of the Judge did not give a reply regarding this.
The bench was considering a Special Leave Petition, filed on August 16, challenging an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting anticipatory bail. The petition was filed without a copy of the order, passed on July 31, on the ground that it has not been uploaded on the website.
The Supreme Court, noting that the order has not been uploaded by the High Court, on August 20, sought a report from the Registrar General of the High Court.
The Registrar General's report stated that on August 20, an explanation was sought from the Judge's Secretary. The Secretary responded after two days. Criticising this approach, the Supreme Court observed, "As such, immediate action in the matter to report at the earliest, was not taken."
The Court also noted that the "Secretary, has not replied when the order was uploaded except to say that the Hon'ble Judge was undergoing some medical procedure and surgery between 01.08.2025 to 20.08.2025."
However, the Court also noted that the order was uploaded after August 20. In this context, the Court observed, "It appears that order impugned was not passed on 31st July, 2025, in fact, it was passed after the order by this Court."
The Court further ordered, "However, the steno book of the Secretary be seized and it be find out on which date the order was typed and corrected on P.C.. The discreet inquiry be held and the report of P.C., from NIC be collected regarding typing and uploading and the same be filed on affidavit."
As regards the petitioner, the Court granted him interim relief that coercive action should not be taken against him in the FIR subject to him cooperating with the investigation.
Last week, the bench led by Justice Maheshwari had delivered a judgment expressing anguish at the High Courts' delay in pronouncing judgments in reserved matters. If judgment is not delivered within three months after reserving, then the Registrar General of the Court must place the matter before the Chief Justice who shall then allocate it to another bench, the Court held.
For petitioners - Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv; Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Adv; Mr. Rohitt Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR
For complainant - Mr. Nipun Katyal, Mr. Suchakshu Jain, Mr. Madhakant Bhatia, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rana, Mr. Manan Sharma, Mr. Rahul Sachdeva, Advs. and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR.
For the High Court- Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv
Case : AJAY MAINI v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. |Diary No. 45855/2025