The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) took strong exception to an allegation that its Registry had misplaced a case file relating to a plea challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, observing that such “inefficiency” warranted an inquiry.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana made the observation after advocate Shubhi Shivani Ahmed informed the court that the file relating to an appeal against an April 27, 2026 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting her client’s anticipatory bail plea had allegedly been misplaced by the administrative wing of the apex court.

“The special leave petition was filed on June 8. However, it has not been registered by the Registry to date,” she submitted. Ms. Ahmed further informed the Bench that she had written to the concerned Registrar seeking clarification but had received no response.

The Chief Justice observed that the allegation could not be brushed aside and would have to be thoroughly examined.

“It is a very serious matter if the Registry has misplaced the file. If our Registry is misplacing files in urgent matters, do you think I will simply direct the matter to be listed? I must do something more. Please give me the details. I would like to look into this inefficiency, what is the reason behind it and who is responsible for it,” he said.

The Chief Justice also asked Ms. Ahmed to have the advocate-on-record (AoR) who had filed the petition lodge a formal complaint and furnish the relevant details of the incident.

“Ask your AoR to submit a complaint to me today. I am available. He or she may submit it in chambers or at my residence. Give me the case details,” he said.

Repeated instances

This is not the first time CJI Kant has voiced concern over the functioning of the Registry.

In May, he delivered a sharp rebuke to the administrative wing, terming the conduct of its officials “nasty” and remarking that some appeared to think of themselves as a “super Chief Justice of India”. The remarks came after he questioned how Registry officials had concluded that the Bench had not issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and other respondents in a matter before it.

In March, the Chief Justice had also raised concerns over the Registry’s functioning after a public interest litigation (PIL) was listed for hearing more than a year after it was last taken up in February 2025. He had then sought a report from the Registrar on the delay.

The Chief Justice has on earlier occasions indicated that “reforms” are required in the functioning of the Registry and observed that he would be “failing in his duty” if he did not undertake such reforms during his tenure.

“The Registry officials think they are here for 20 years... and we are all in the transit stage while they are permanent. They think the Registry should function the way they want,” he had remarked in February.

The Supreme Court Registry functions under Article 146 of the Constitution and operates under the overall supervision of the Secretary General, who reports to the CJI. The Registry is responsible for the administration of court records, listing of cases, and compliance with procedural requirements. It comprises a hierarchy of officers, including registrars, additional registrars, deputy registrars, and branch officers.