SUPREME COURT SEEKS CLARIFICATION FROM MADRAS HIGH COURT REGISTRY OVER NON-LISTING OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL PLEA DUE TO SC/ST ACT BAR:

In a significant development concerning procedural lapses in the judiciary, the Supreme Court on Monday sought a detailed explanation from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court for not listing an anticipatory bail application filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The application had been rejected from being placed before the court by the High Court Registry, citing Section 18A of the Act, which imposes a bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in certain cases.

The bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice N.K. Singh, was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed to challenge the Registry’s refusal to list the anticipatory bail plea before the competent bench. The petitioner argued that the decision on whether a plea is maintainable lies solely within the domain of the judiciary and cannot be pre-emptively determined by the Registry.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner informed the Supreme Court that the arrest of the petitioner had already taken place on June 27, a few days prior to the hearing, rendering the original prayer for anticipatory bail ineffective. Despite the arrest, the petitioner’s counsel urged the Court to address the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court Registry. He emphasized that although the petition had become infructuous in terms of its substantive relief, the procedural lapse merited judicial attention and correction.

Taking serious note of this concern, the Supreme Court held that it was appropriate to seek an official explanation from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court. The Court remarked that the task of determining whether a matter is maintainable is fundamentally a judicial function. It is not within the powers of the Registry to unilaterally withhold a matter from being placed before a judge, especially when the maintainability itself may require judicial interpretation.

In its order, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel had stated at the outset that the arrest of the petitioner had rendered the main prayer infructuous. However, considering the limited prayer now sought—namely, to direct the Registrar to explain the non-listing of the application—the Court deemed it necessary to proceed further. Accordingly, the bench issued notice to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, directing them to clarify under what circumstances the anticipatory bail application had been withheld from judicial consideration.

The Court further stated that the Registrar General must file both a report and a personal affidavit explaining the procedural rationale behind the decision not to list the plea. The matter has now been scheduled for hearing after four weeks, giving the Registrar sufficient time to respond.

This episode brings to light critical concerns regarding procedural transparency and the boundaries of administrative and judicial roles within the court system. The petitioner was represented by Advocate-on-Record Tushar Giri. The outcome of the next hearing may set an important precedent on how registries across the country handle similar matters, particularly those involving sensitive provisions like Section 18A of the SC/ST Act.