New Delhi: After lawyers in the Supreme Court alerted Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday that the new system for categorisation of cases of persons with disabilities has not yet become fully operational, the court Wednesday issued a new administrative order for its proper implementation so that such petitioners get prioritised and receive an early hearing.
The new order mandates lawyers to specifically mention the category of the petitioner when filing a case in the Supreme Court. For this purpose, the top court has defined four categories. These are cases relating to specially abled persons and acid attack victims, cases relating to senior citizens (aged above 8-0 years), cases involving persons who are below the poverty line, and legal aid matters.
The order issued on 29th December, last year, had already prioritised the listing of cases related to persons with disabilities (PwDs), senior citizens above 80, persons below the poverty line, and acid attack victims.
On Tuesday, a lawyer appeared before the CJI’s court and complained about the non-listing of petitions involving disabled persons. She informed the court about the registry’s non-cooperation in giving preference to such petitioners, in terms of the December circular.
Responding to the grievances, the CJI assured that he would look into the matter and get it resolved. The lawyer was told to submit a list of all cases of litigants with disabilities to the registry immediately.
The new administrative order, issued on 10 February, clarifies the procedure that will be followed if a petition is filed under one of the above four categories.
It requires the lawyers or the parties to provide documentary evidence showing that their case falls under one of the categories. After due verification, the Dealing Assistant “shall immediately put up the same in the concerned case file for approval of the Branch Officer/ Assistant Registrar”.
After the officer approves the file upon due verification of documents, the Dealing Assistant shall update the matter in ICIMIS, the software used for online filing of cases.
The 10th February order also came attached with a user manual, which elaborated on how these heads are to be updated in the ICIMIS software.
“Accordingly, members of the Bar, parties-in-person and all stakeholders are required to invariably mention the relevant head, among these four newly introduced heads, under which the matter actually falls, in all fresh petitions being filed with the Registry”, the circular had specified.
Apart from this, the court has also directed that an appropriate application or letter, along with the documentary proof, must be issued by an appropriate government authority in this regard and submitted before it.
All persons concerned have also been requested to provide the said details in the pending matter or cases too, so as to enable the Registry to appropriately update the matters under appropriate heads.
“This will enable the Registry to prioritise the listing of such cases,” the order reads while specifying that it should be posted on all the notice boards of the Supreme Court.
The 29 December Circular
The circular, which was issued last year, had said that on Miscellaneous Days, which are Mondays and Fridays, the cause list will be published in such a way that it prioritises matters in the prescribed order.
At the top of the list were early hearing applications in admitted matters, followed by fresh matters. At the third spot, in order of priority, were the bail hearings, which means that the CJI has prioritised personal liberty. This will be followed by post-notice ad-interim stay matters, freshly adjourned matters, and settlement cases, in that order.
Ranked seventh in order of priority are cases relating to PwDs and acid attack victims, followed by those of senior citizens aged 80 and above. Subsequently, cases concerning citizens below the poverty line will be taken up, after which legal aid matters, transfer pleas, orders, Public Interest Litigation or PILs will be taken up—in that order. Finally, the circular mentions part-heard, post-notice matters, and matters listed for direction—in that order.
(Edited by Varnika Dhawan)