‘No mention of caste, religion of parties in case files’, SC to its registry [Read Circular]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court's registry issued an order to comply with a recent direction by a two-judge bench that the practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants must be shunned.

In an order passed on January 10, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had said, “We see no reason for mentioning the caste/religion of any litigant either before this court or the courts below. Such a practice is to be shunned and must be ceased forthwith”.

In a circular, the SC said, "In compliance with the directions of the court, as above, all the concerned officers/officials of the Registry are hereby directed to adhere to the aforesaid directions that henceforth the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before this court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the courts below."

The court also asked the members of bar associations like the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates on-Record Association (SCAORA) to take note of the directions.

In its January 10 order, the bench had issued a general order directing that henceforth the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before this Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the courts below.

The bench had said that a direction is also issued to all the high courts to ensure that the caste/religion of a litigant does not appear in the memo of parties in any petition/suit/proceeding filed before the high court or the subordinate courts under their respective jurisdictions.

“The above directions shall be brought to the notice of the members of the Bar as well as the Registry for immediate compliance. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar concerned for perusal and for circulation to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for strict compliance,” the  bench had said.

[Read Circular]