Reported by S Shyam Prasad in Bangaloremirror.com on Jul 8, 2012
Scrutiny officers of HC told to undergo refresher course , News - City - Bangalore Mirror,Bangalore Mirror

The section of the High Court of Karnataka, where papers and documents related to cases filed by advocates are scrutinised before they are placed in court for a preliminary hearing or for admission, is delaying the process, according to a complaint given to the chief justice by senior advocate N P Amrutesh.

The scrutiny section is entrusted with checking if all relevant documents have been filed before the case is presented in a court.

Amrutesh had filed a RTI seeking details of the education background of the officers in the scrutiny branch. He alleged that those in the scrutiny bench are raising ‘unnecessary and irrelevant objections’. In his complaint, which has been posted on the notice board of the high court, Amrutesh says, “…the officials scrutinising the papers are not at all having any legal background or any of the training to scrutinise the petitions filed by advocates. Without knowing the crux of the matter, …they are commanding/suggesting to advocates to alter the petitions”.

A day after Amrutesh filed his complaint, on June 26, an internal memo was issued.

It said that scrutiny branch officials have to undergo a training programme.


‘They are mere clerks, not judges’


It is not just Amrutesh who has a grouse. Advocate Nagendra Naik says that some clerks go beyond their call of duty. He said, “Strictly speaking, the scrutiny branch has to check specific things in a file. They have a check list, which includes whether a copy has been given to the government, whether the affidavits are sworn and so on. It is just a clerical job for which they do not need legal knowledge. However, some go so far as to say ‘This writ petition is not maintainable’, which only a court can decide.”

Another senior advocate A V Amarnathan said, “Though it may not be necessary to have a legal background for those working in the scrutiny branch, they are delaying things by being so meticulous as to be an irritant. I had filed a public interest litigation about politicians recommending transfer of police officers. The scrutiny branch wanted all the 72 recommendation letters to be translated into English, delaying the case by one month. The officials fear that the judges will hold them responsible if they pass the file.

“They have to follow the writ petition rules in the High Court of Karnataka Act, but by being too prudish they are delaying cases.”