The Supreme Court automatic listing system came into being on 10th July 2017. This is stated to be based on an “automated, dynamic and a responsive software (ICMIS)” to rule out manual intervention. The big question is whether discrimination is built into the software or is it open to manual intervention?
Supreme court automatic listing and Petitioners in Person: Our case
On 11.10.2023 my sister along with me (as power of attorney holder for my mother) filed Special Leave Petition (Crl) D.No.42384/2023 in the Supreme Court of India with a letter of urgency. This SLP arises from Writ Petition No.19222 of 2022 we had filed in the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge, Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, High Court of Karnataka, on 06.10.2023, suo motu vacated an interim order granting stay of proceedings in a Criminal Appeal filed by my mother against an order of conviction. I represent my mother in person in the criminal appeal proceedings.
It took a while for the court office to notify scrutiny objections. They were notified on 30.10.2023 after several emails and an RTI application. Consequently the SLP was verified on 10.11.2023 and the matter was tentatively listed for 08.12.2023. The Registry tagged this along with another SLP I had filed. This is four weeks from verification.
Supreme Court Automatic Listing Notification
As the notification lays down cases filed by Petitioners in person are listed after four weeks. This is to enable the mandatory interaction with the Registrar. This is found in Clause/Rule/Para/Section No.13 reproduced below:
- The matters of in-Person shall be listed after giving a clear notice of four
weeks and in case a party wants to get his/her matter listed before the period of four weeks he/she may prefer a request in writing to the Registrar after the completion of interaction as per rules.
While interactions with the Registrar are mandatory for litigants appearing in person, this is not needed if you have already had an interaction before. My sister stated this fact clearly in the urgency letter accompanying the Special Leave Petition. She stated it in all communication with the Registry concerning listing.
In 2022 the Supreme Court in Ajay Gautam v. The Registrar Supreme Court of India had directed the Registry to expedite the listing of cases filed by petitioners appearing in person.
Moreover, the Supreme Court had also issued a circular, dated 17.08.2023, for the notice of Party-in-persons as well about the listing of fresh matters:
(i) henceforth, fresh matters verified on Friday, Saturday and Monday shall be
listed on the following Friday.
(ii) fresh matters verified on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday shall be listed
on Monday in the following week; and
(iii) in case, there are excess fresh matters, the same shall be listed on the
following Tuesday.
Our Case: Continued
On 26.11.2023 the SLP(crl.) we had filed was de-tagged from the main case and posted for 05.01.2024. It is relevant to note here that this was done on 26.11.2023 – a Sunday. So now the waiting time runs into 8 weeks.
As such one did what the law says you should do. In Clause/Rule/Para/Section No.13 one is directed to write to the Registrar seeking an earlier date. Which my sister promptly did and waited. The reason why it was imperative that we should have been in front of a Bench on 08.12.2023 was because the criminal appellate court was moving towards passing judgment in a criminal case that affected the life and liberty of both my mother and us. The stress was unbearable.
Since there was no response my sister filed a mentioning memo seeking a listing for 08.12.2023 – the date it had been initially listed for. The mentioning memo was not listed. And yes the Registrar did get back saying get in touch with the mentioning branch of the Registry.
Software with inbuilt Prejudices
While speaking at a public occasion the current Chief Justice of India, Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, addressed the issue of Artificial Intelligence systems amplifying discrimination because of data inputs that come from biased sources. So the question that arises here is whether biased data input against a Petitioner who appears in person in the creation of the ICMIS software that runs the Supreme Court automatic listing is the culprit here? Can this be tweaked? Is there any incentive to tweak it?
Anyone who has appeared as a Petitioner in person in the courts in India knows that one is not welcome. There are so few Judges, I’ve only encountered one, who are thrilled to be engaging with you. Understandable. Yet what is not understandable is when the law affords you the space to represent yourself why is it looked on as an anomaly or as a glitch that needs to be erased. One feels that way. And when you are fighting a case that has drained you off of all faith in the system you do feel like a glitch or what it rhymes with!
And yet there still persists the question of whether the supreme court automatic listing is open to manual intervention. The cases that me and my family are fighting are part of a 15000 crore scam discovered in 2010. And the lawyers who filed these cases are fake advocates based on RTI documents received from the Karnataka State Bar Council. Our struggle with accessing the High Court of Karnataka, the immense administrative hurdles we face also raise the question of fake advocates being able to hack into court systems. We have proof that they can.
So I am left wondering ‘biased technology’ or a ‘system open to outside manipulation’? Both answers are problematic!
Requested Attribution:
Rashmi Munikempanna is a disabled woman currently appearing as party-in-person in the District courts, High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court of India. She chronicles her journey in the courts on cityofdis.in
