Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A Special Leave Petition was filed in Supreme Court against an impugned order and judgement dated 02nd January 2019 passed by High Court of Tamil Nadu and order of High Court Registry, in not numbering the anticipatory bail petition of petitioner. The Supreme Court has stated that the High Court registry cannot decide maintainability of petitions which requires judicial application of mind. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering the special leave petition (P. Surendran vs. State) challenging the action of Madras High Court Registry which had refused numbering of a Anticipatory Bail petition and dismissed it on the issue of the maintainability in view of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The issue considered by the Apex Court was whether the Madras High Court Registry was wrong, in not numbering the Anticipatory Bail Petition and as to whether consequent dismissal of the same on the issue of maintainability of the petition impinges on the judicial function of the High Court.
While hearing the plea, the court sought the views of the Attorney General who opined that the registry of the Madras High Court could not have refused to number the anticipatory bail application on the ground of maintainability. It is well settled that the nature of Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. The court further observed that the act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. Moreover, Court said that the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicate at application of judicial mind. Therefore, held that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, court could not sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. While directing the registry to number the petition, the court clarified that it has not expressed any views on the nature of the amendment, the standard of judicial review and the extent of justiciability under Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act.
86540
103860
630
114
59824