Recommended Free Tools
A case related to Adani Power Rajasthan Limited was listed for a Supreme Court hearing on 24 January 2024 and then removed from the hearing list, according to a 5 February 2024 report by Scroll. The report presented the episode as an example of uncertainty around later case listings—not as a court finding of wrongdoing. It did not include the underlying order or an explanation from the Registry for the deletion.
What happened to the Adani-related case?
Scroll reported that the matter, brought by a Rajasthan state firm against Adani, had been scheduled for 24 January 2024 before being deleted from the Supreme Court’s hearing list. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for the state firm, described the deletion as “very disturbing” and said it showed the Registry acting in defiance of a judicial order setting the hearing date. That is Dave’s characterization as reported by Scroll; the report did not reproduce the order or provide an official Registry explanation.
The distinction matters: the report documents the deletion and the concerns expressed by interviewees, but it does not establish why the case was removed, whether the Registry acted unlawfully, or whether the episode reflected a wider pattern.
How does Supreme Court case listing work?
The process described by Scroll begins when a filing reaches the Registry’s registration and verification department. The department checks the filing and marks any defects for the advocate to correct. Once defects are cured and a file is admitted, it is listed for the Chief Justice, who acts as master of roster and determines when cases are listed and which bench hears them. This is the process described in the report, not a complete account of current Supreme Court rules.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Initial listing and later hearing dates
The report’s interviewees distinguished the initial listing stage from later hearing dates. They described initial procedures as more understandable, while saying subsequent dates could be harder to anticipate. Advocate-on-record Akriti Chaubey said a later listing might appear computer generated, but lawyers did not know why a particular date had been assigned.
Interviewees estimated that verification could take anywhere from ten minutes to two weeks and that an admitted case might commonly be listed within about ten days. These are their estimates, not official service standards or court-wide statistics.
Why did lawyers call the system a “black box”?
The criticism in the report was primarily about limited visibility: lawyers and court observers said they could not reliably predict when an admitted matter would be listed, understand why it received a particular date, or learn what the Registry’s explanation was when a bench questioned an irregularity. Surya Prakash BS of Daksh described the system as discretionary and emphasized the Chief Justice’s role as master of roster. He summarized the uncertainty by saying, “Uncertainty is a feature of the system.”
Prakash also argued that senior advocates and major firms could sometimes secure prompt listings, creating what he called a “power economy.” That is his assessment, not proof in the report that preferential treatment occurred in the Adani-related matter or across the Court.
Rank #3
What other listing controversies did the report cite?
Scroll placed the January 2024 deletion alongside several earlier episodes: repeated deferrals over more than two months in 2023 in the Adani-Hindenburg regulatory case; the December 2023 delisting of a matter concerning delays in judicial appointments, when Justice S.K. Kaul reportedly said he had not asked for it to be deleted; and instances in 2020 when benches questioned the Registry about delays in listing cases.
These examples show the concerns raised by the report’s sources. They do not establish a common cause, demonstrate that all listing decisions are irregular, or quantify how often listing problems occur.
Rank #4
Can the Registry change a hearing date?
The report describes listing decisions as part of a process in which the Chief Justice, as master of roster, determines listing timing and bench assignment. It does not explain the specific authority or steps involved in removing the Adani-related case from the 24 January list, and it does not include the Registry’s account. The available reporting therefore does not establish why the date changed or whether the removal followed an order or other procedural direction.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What reforms did interviewees suggest?
The sources quoted by Scroll did not agree that every aspect of listing should be automated. An anonymous advocate-on-record said judicial experience can matter when cases are assigned to benches and argued that the Chief Justice should exercise discretion rationally.
Best Value
Other proposed safeguards focused on making discretion easier to understand and review:
- Sriram Panchu called for an explanation when a listing mistake occurs.
- Prakash proposed a policy setting permissible gaps between hearings and consequences when those limits are missed.
The report does not say that either proposal was adopted. Its account is historical reporting from February 2024, not confirmation of the Court’s current docket status, later policy changes, or an official explanation for the deletion.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
