The Calcutta High Court on Friday in the case of Sri Kanchan Tanti v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., comprising of a bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee expressed strong displeasure over its Registry for failure to list a habeas corpus petition filed in the year 1997, for as many as 23 years, despite explicit directions to list the matter after three months.
In the instant case the Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking directions from the High Court to enable a mother to receive custody of her baby from the hospital authorities, post-delivery, in the hospital.
On the day of the first hearing, the then Division Bench of the High Court had instructed the Registry to list the matter within the next three months for the second hearing. Meanwhile, separate orders were also passed to the Director-General of Police of the State to file a case and thereby commence an investigation in the said matter.
Defying and dishonoring the orders passed by the High Court, the Registry had stalled the ordered listing for a period of twenty-three years. Immensely displeased with the unruly behavior of the concerned officials, the High Court of Calcutta even proposed the initiation of suitable measures against such wayward officials responsible for the unreasonably long delays as the one in the instant case.
The High Court opined that such a backlog of cases could not be afforded in the judicial system. With regards to the merits of the case, the Court however held that the matter qualifies for conclusion at this stage, and accordingly an order for disposing of the Writ Petition was passed. It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court in the matter of Hussain and Another v. Union of India has issued suitable guidelines for dealing with the issue regarding the backlog of criminal cases in Courts.
"We are in a judicial system. We cannot afford stacking of files without the same being listed in spite of judicial orders. When matters are not listed by the office of the High Court in spite of judicial orders, it may, at least in certain situations, be appropriate that the Courts should consider initiating action for misconduct against the officers concerned for having deflected the course of justice by disobeying judicial orders for posting a case," it observed.
It added that when matters are not listed by the office of the high court in spite of judicial orders, it may, at least in certain situations, be appropriate that the courts should consider initiating action for misconduct against the officers concerned.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
