Supreme Court Of India
Special Leave Petition dismissed for non-removal of defects within 90 days under SCR 2013
An Office Report on Default in a Supreme Court matter — State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Vinod alias Dinesh, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 15389 of 2017.
It records that:
- The Special Leave Petition, filed against the 23.06.2016 order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2016, was found defective at the scrutiny stage.
- Despite communication of the defects, they were not cured within the prescribed 90 days under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Under the proviso to Order III Rule 8 Clause VII of the 2013 Rules, if defects remain unrectified beyond 90 days, the matter is to be placed before a Judge in Chambers with an Office Report on Default for appropriate orders.
- In compliance, the case was listed before the Hon’ble Judge in Chambers as of 01 September 2017.
If the defects in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) are not rectified within twenty-eight days, the petitioner must, at the time of refiling, annex an application seeking condonation of delay. Upon removal of the defects, the Scrutiny Assistant forwards the matter to the Branch Officer (BO) for verification. At this stage, the BO examines whether the petition is procedurally in order, prepares an Office Report indicating, inter alia, whether an identical or similar matter is already pending before the Supreme Court, and records the statutory provision under which the SLP is filed. The Registry also ascertains whether a caveat exists. If so, the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) must serve the caveator and furnish proof of service, failing which the SLP will not be treated as defect-free. Once the BO is satisfied that all procedural requirements have been fulfilled, the matter is formally registered in the computerised docket.
A defect-free SLP is ordinarily listed by the Listing Branch within one week.
Where defects are not removed within ninety days from the date of their communication, the petition is listed before the Hon’ble Judge in Chambers with an Office Report on default for appropriate orders. Non-compliance may result in dismissal for default. If, after such dismissal, the petitioner subsequently cures the defects and the Supreme Court accepts the refiling, the concerned party is notified accordingly.
The respondent may, through counsel, appear in chambers and press for dismissal. An Interlocutory Application (IA) may be moved under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, seeking dismissal of the SLP on the ground of prolonged defect-pendency and procedural lapse. The IA may rely upon the fact that, under settled practice, an SLP remaining defective beyond the permissible period is liable to be treated as abandoned or dismissed for non-prosecution.
When a defective SLP is listed before the Judge in Chambers, the following outcomes are possible:
- Outright Dismissal – where defects are substantive and remain unrectified.
- Time for Rectification – where defects are minor, further time may be granted.
- Listing for Admission – where defects are insignificant, the petition may proceed to admission hearing.
Procedurally, the defects and Diary Number are communicated to the AOR or party-in-person by e-mail. Defects may be removed by accessing the “Re-filing” option in the e-filing portal. If rectification occurs after sixty days, an application for condonation of delay in re-filing under Order V Rule 2(32) must be filed and listed before the Judge in Chambers. Where the Judge stipulates a period for rectification, the record is sent to the concerned dealing assistant, who must ensure certification by the Section Officer within the given time, failing which the matter is again listed before the Judge in Chambers for orders on default. Upon removal of defects, the matter proceeds for admission through automatic allocation unless otherwise directed.
