On Thursday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant announced that he will conduct a “deeper probe” into the registry for permitting similar petitions to be heard by different benches despite previous dismissals. “If I don’t bring reform here before I demit office, I will fail in my duty,” declared the CJI, in one of his harshest public rebukes of the register yet, indicating an administrative shakeup ahead.
Justice Kant is set to retire in February 2027. The statements came after Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, defending the Uttar Pradesh government in the case, presented the court with an order indicating that a similar challenge had previously been dismissed by a three-judge bench.
“I’d like to look into how the case was listed from an administrative perspective. The division of this court into different benches is troubling.When a bench has stated an opinion, how does that case proceed to another bench?” said the CJI, who presided over the bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi.
Justice Kant also stated that he was “shocked” by what he had lately learned about the registry’s operation. “The registry officials believe they have been here for 20 years, but we are all in the transition stage and they are permanent.” “They believe the registry should function the way they want,” he said.
The bench was hearing a suit challenging the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, on the grounds that it violates Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Senior advocate Shoeb Alam represented the petitioner.
A similar suit filed by Siraj Ahmad Khan is currently pending before a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan. In light of this, Irfan Solanki, the petitioner in this case, requested that his petition be tagged with the ongoing matter. However, ASG Nataraj noted that a similar case had previously been denied – not once, but twice, since 2022.
At this point, Alam requested that the petition be withdrawn if the court was unwilling to combine it with the other matter sitting before Justice Pardiwala’s bench or entertain it, but the CJI demanded that it remain on file. Alam was also asked to assist the bench.
