New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cast a shadow of doubt over the timing of the passing of an order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, saying that the matter must be investigated and a report must be filed.
A two-judge bench led by Justice J.K. Maheshwari expressed concerns that given the HC did not upload the bail order even 20 days after it was allegedly passed on 31 July, there could be a possibility that the order wasn’t passed at all until much later.
Underlining the need for a “discreet inquiry” in the case, the Supreme Court has directed closer scrutiny in the matter.
Also, in an unusual move, the Supreme Court on 29 August directed the seizure of the steno book of a High Court judge’s secretary, in order to check the date on which an order was uploaded.
The issue originates from a case where a man had approached the top court seeking anticipatory bail, while challenging an order of the high court which dismissed his bail plea on 31 July, but failed to upload the order on its website. When the man reached the Supreme Court, he was asked about the order, and when he said it was not on the HC website, the court directed that a closer investigation be conducted.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi ruled that a “discreet inquiry” must be conducted to find out when the particular order was typed and uploaded. “A discreet inquiry be held and the report of the personal computer, from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) be collected regarding typing and uploading and the same be filed on affidavit,” the court ruled.
Interestingly, the copy of the order being challenged in this case was not uploaded on the HC’s website until 20 August. Hence, the petition before the Supreme Court was filed without including the order copy. The petition said the order was not uploaded on the website.
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Nipun Katyal who appeared for the complainant who had supplied the accused with goods said, “Ajay Maini, the main accused, first refused to pay for goods after receiving them. Later, he claimed that his company is insolvent, and that he cannot pay back the amount he had taken. At first the sessions court denied him bail, and subsequently, the HC also denied him bail.”
Maini then approached the top court seeking anticipatory bail, but without the order he had challenged. When he sought exemption from filing that order, Justice Maheshwari asked why the order was not uploaded. That is when the Supreme Court bench found out that the HC order had not been uploaded.
The conspicuous absence of the order under challenge also caused Justice Maheshwari to issue a show-cause notice to the registrar general, asking why it wasn’t uploaded so far. On 22 August, the court had sought an explanation from the judge’s secretary seeking reasons for not uploading the order.
The Supreme Court then noted the order was uploaded on the Punjab & Haryana HC’s website on or after 20 August, and the reason given by the judge’s secretary was that Justice Sandeep Mudgil had been ill and not holding court, hence the order was delayed.
To this, the top court expressed disapproval and even noted in its order, “It appears that order impugned was not passed on 31 July, in fact, it was passed after the order by this Court.”
Why the court had to cross-check
On considering that the order rejecting anticipatory bail was not uploaded until 20 August, the court sought a report from the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, two days after taking note of this, on 22 August.
“The Secretary responded on 22.08.2025, but the Registrar General sent a report on 25.08.2025,” the court noted in its order while observing that although a response from the judge’s secretary came the same day, the Registrar General sent his report three days later.
Sham Sunder, the judge’s Secretary, also did not say when the order was uploaded. He simply said, “The judge was undergoing some medical procedure and surgery between 01.08.2025 to 20.08.2025,” the top court noted.
Finally, the SC also expressed its apprehension that the order was not passed on 31 July, but instead after the top court took notice that the order had not been uploaded.
The court also issued notice to the Punjab and Haryana government, listing the matter for hearing after four weeks. It also made clear that in the meantime, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner, as the matter was under investigation.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Bathroom, beer & court proceedings. Virtual hearings now face more questions than answers