CJI Surya Kant Orders Deep Probe into Supreme Court Registry Functioning

Moneylife Digital Team 26 February 2026

Economy & Nation

Chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Thursday announced that he would order a deep administrative probe into the functioning of the Supreme Court registry after discovering that a petition dismissed by a three-judge bench was subsequently listed before another bench.

The chief justice says he was taken aback to learn that a plea which had earlier been declined by a three-judge bench had resurfaced before a different bench of the Court.

“I will order a deep probe into the functioning of the registry. There are officials who have been here for 20 to 30 years. They seem to believe that judges are temporary occupants while they are permanent fixtures. As a result, processes are made to operate according to their preferences. If I fail to rectify this before I demit office, I would be failing in my duty,” CJI says.

The remarks came during the hearing of a plea challenging provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on the ground of alleged repugnancy with Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The bench comprising CJI Kant, justice Joymalya Bagchi and justice Vipul Pancholi was informed that a similar challenge had earlier been brought before a three-judge bench led by former CJI DY Chandrachud, along with justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and justice Dipankar Datta. By order dated 12 December 2022, that bench had declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedies before an appropriate forum.

In the present matter, a petitioner sought tagging of his plea with a similar petition pending before a bench led by justice JB Pardiwala and justice KV Viswanathan.

The state of Uttar Pradesh pointed out that an earlier comparable challenge in Md Anas Chaudhary vs State of Uttar Pradesh had already been dismissed by the three-judge bench.

Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the repugnancy argument would sustain in light of the General Clauses Act and its interplay with special state legislation dealing with organised crime.

Senior counsel Shoeb Alam sought permission to withdraw the plea; however, chief justice Kant indicated that the matter would remain on board so that it could be examined appropriately.

The chief justice’s observations have brought the spotlight on internal administrative processes within the apex court, particularly the way matters are listed before different benches, despite prior judicial orders.

Comments

User

david.rasquinha

2 months ago

But on the other hand, when a textbook makes a generalised statement about corruption being a challenge to the judiciary, without even accusing any judge, the CJI is up in arms at the insult!!!

vaibhavdhoka

2 months ago

It is time to separate administative function and actual judicial work and action.No jumping and adjournment must be limited and only genuine reasons be allowed
Or else cost be levied. Even though I am 71 year old my W.P no 1947 of 2011 is pending I'm Mumbai high court