"File and Run" Culture at Supreme Court Registry: Lawyer Alleges Harassment Before CJI Surya Kant
EduLaw EditorialLegal Updates"It seems that for poor advocates like me, there is no space in the Supreme Court" — A lawyer's explosive allegations before CJI Surya Kant expose systemic dysfunction at the Supreme Court Registry, including months-long listing delays and ignored complaints. "File and Run" Culture at Supreme Court Registry: Lawyer Alleges Harassment Before CJI Surya Kant Subheading: Advocate tells CJI that despite raising complaints since May 2026, he continues to be sent "from one window to another" with no resolution — CJI directs Registrars to hear out the complaint Date: August 21, 2026 In a sharp courtroom exchange on August 21, 2026, a lawyer appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant alleged persistent harassment and bureaucratic indifference at the Supreme Court Registry, describing its functioning as a culture of "file and run." The advocate's submissions paint a troubling picture of systemic dysfunction within the administrative machinery of India's highest court, where ordinary practitioners claim they are being denied even basic procedural access. The advocate told the CJI that he had first raised the matter before His Lordship on May 25, 2026, and was personally assured that the issues would be looked into. However, he claimed that despite this assurance, he continued to face harassment in almost all his cases. "It seems that for poor advocates like me, there is no space in the Supreme Court," the lawyer stated, drawing attention to what he described as a deeply embedded institutional bias that favours connected practitioners over those who lack influence. The Registry's Delay: Defects Cured But Listing Took Nearly Two Months To substantiate his allegations, the advocate cited a specific example from his practice. He informed the Bench that in one particular case, the Registry itself had recorded that all defects in the filing were cured on June 18, 2026. Despite this, the matter was only listed for hearing on August 14, 2026 — a gap of nearly two months — even though the advocate had personally visited the Registrar to follow up. This delay, according to the lawyer, was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of neglect faced by advocates who lack the privilege of institutional access. The advocate elaborated that practitioners are routinely asked to go "from one window to another," creating a runaround that exhausts both time and resources without delivering any concrete outcome. He characterised this as a "file and run" culture — a phrase suggesting that Registry officials accept filings but then take no proactive steps to process them, leaving advocates to chase their own matters endlessly through an unresponsive bureaucratic maze. Six Months of Complaints, Zero Action When CJI Surya Kant asked the advocate why he had not sent a written complaint, the lawyer responded that he had in fact been complaining for the past six months. He stated that he had written four separate letters, all of which were also sent via email to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. The advocate further alleged that when he approached the Secretary General in person, rather than hearing him out directly, the official would simply redirect the matter to the Registrar, who in turn offered no meaningful relief. This circular pattern of referral, the lawyer implied, amounts to institutional stonewalling. CJI Surya Kant's Response and Direction Acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, CJI Surya Kant noted that two Registrars were present in the courtroom during the exchange. The advocate responded by requesting permission to meet with them on the same day. While the CJI did not issue a formal judicial order on the matter at this stage, the exchange itself carries significant weight given Chief Justice Surya Kant's well-documented stance against administrative dysfunction within the Supreme Court Registry. A Pattern of CJI's Displeasure With the Registry This courtroom exchange is the latest in a series of instances where CJI Surya Kant has publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the functioning of the Supreme Court Registry. In May 2026, the Chief Justice called the Registry "very nasty" and said that certain officials behaved as though they were "Super Chief Justices," after discovering that a judicial order directing issuance of notice to the Enforcement Directorate had gone uncomplied with for weeks. In another incident in June 2026, Advocate Shubhi Shivani Jaideep informed the Bench that a Special Leave Petition filed on June 8 remained unregistered because the Registry had allegedly misplaced the case file. CJI Surya Kant responded sternly on that occasion as well, directing the Advocate-on-Record to file a written complaint immediately and stating: "If our Registry is misplacing urgent files, do you think I will leave it at that? I will have to see who is to blame." In February 2026, the CJI had also flagged that similar matters were being listed before different Benches, suggesting