Chief Justice Surya Kant on Thursday (February 26, 2026) expressed surprise at the functioning of the Supreme Court registry and hinted at a thorough investigation into how similar cases are being listed before different benches. He said, ‘If I am not able to improve the listing of cases in the Supreme Court registry before the end of my tenure, I will be failing in the discharge of my duty.’
CJI Surya Kant made this comment during the hearing of a petition related to the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. This case was rejected by other benches of the Supreme Court. He asked how this case was listed before his bench, while a similar case is currently being heard in another bench of the Supreme Court.
This case was heard before the bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi. The CJI said, ‘Last week I received a complaint and I was shocked to see what was happening in the registry. Registry officials think that they are here for 20-30 years and judges only for 6-7 years. Judges keep coming and going. The problem is that they think that judges are all on temporary status and they are permanent in this institution.
According to the report of Live Law, CJI Surya Kant said, ‘This is what is happening and they think that the registry should work as per their wish. If I am not able to bring reforms in the Supreme Court Registry before the end of my tenure, I will fail in the discharge of my duty. Justice Surya Kant said that since taking over as CJI, he has taken strict steps regarding fixing the list of cases, but the problem still persists.
The bench retained the petition filed by Irfan Solanki, in which the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act was challenged on the ground that it is contrary to Section 111 of the Central Act BNS. A law is said to be contrary when the state and central laws cover the same subject area, in such a situation the central law prevails.
The Supreme Court has fixed March 25 as the next date of hearing on Solanki’s petition. Senior advocate Shoaib Alam, appearing for Solanki, requested to withdraw the petition when Additional Solicitor General K.M., appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government. Nataraj noted that other benches of the Supreme Court have rejected such petitions on the basis of inconsistency between state and central law.
A similar petition filed by Siraj Ahmed Khan, challenging the provisions of the ‘Uttar Pradesh Gangs and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986’, is currently pending before a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan. ASG Nataraj had appeared in that case also.
Shoaib Alam wanted that Irfan Solanki’s petition should be merged with Siraj Ahmed Khan’s petition. ASG Nataraj said that a three-judge bench headed by then CJI DY Chandrachud and another bench headed by Justice Dipankar Dutta had earlier also rejected appeals filed against the orders of the High Court in which the UP Gangster Act was challenged on similar grounds.
