Courtroom to Steno Book: Supreme Court Demands Transparency in Judicial Orders

By Anish Sinha

Introduction

In a striking order passed on 29 August 2025, the Supreme Court in Ajay Maini v. State of Haryana & Ors.[1] directed the seizure of the stenographer’s book of a High Court Judge’s Secretary to ascertain the actual date of typing and uploading of an anticipatory bail order. The bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi resorted to this extraordinary step after noticing troubling discrepancies surrounding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order dated 31 July 2025. The petitioner had filed his special leave petition without even a copy of the High Court’s order, since it had not been uploaded on the court’s website until well after the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.

The Court had earlier sought a report from the Registrar General of the High Court, which revealed a chain of delays and ambiguities. While the Registrar General sought an explanation only on 22 August, the Secretary to the Judge failed to clarify when the order was typed or uploaded, merely citing the Judge’s medical procedures during the first three weeks of August. The order eventually appeared online after 20 August, raising doubts about whether it was in fact passed on 31 July, as officially recorded. Observing that the order appeared to have been issued only after the Supreme Court’s intervention, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the explanations provided and stressed the need for an independent verification of the record.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that the steno book of the Judge’s Secretary be seized and a discreet inquiry conducted to determine the precise dates of typing, correction, and uploading. It further directed the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to provide a report verifying the digital trail of the order’s preparation and upload. At the same time, the Court issued notice to the State of Haryana while granting interim protection to the petitioner, directing that no coercive action be taken against him in the pending FIR provided he cooperates with the investigation. This unprecedented order underscores the Court’s emphasis on transparency and accountability in the administration of justice, extending scrutiny even to the clerical processes that bring judicial decisions into the public domain.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Ajay Maini, approached the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition on 16 August 2025. Along with the petition, he also filed applications seeking exemption from producing a certified or plain copy of the impugned order. This was necessitated by the fact that the order dated 31 July 2025, by which the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected his plea for anticipatory bail, had not been uploaded on the High Court’s website as of the filing date.

When the matter was listed before the Supreme Court on 20 August 2025, the bench recorded with concern that even by then the impugned order remained unavailable on the public domain. Since the petitioner had filed his case without access to the order itself, the Court considered it appropriate to seek an explanation from the High Court. Accordingly, the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was directed to submit a report regarding the circumstances under which the order had not been uploaded.

The Registrar General’s report, later placed before the Court, disclosed that although the order bore the date of 31 July 2025, it was not uploaded until much later. It was also noted that the Registrar General sought an explanation from the Judge’s Secretary only on 22 August 2025. The Secretary, Mr. Sham Sunder, gave his reply the same day, but he did not specify the exact date of uploading. He merely stated that the Hon’ble Judge was undergoing medical treatment and surgery between 1 August and 20 August, which had affected the process.

The Registrar General eventually submitted the report to the Supreme Court on 25 August 2025. By that time, the order had been uploaded, though this fact was not expressly clarified in the Secretary’s explanation. Taking note of these circumstances, the bench observed that the order appeared not to have been passed on 31 July as recorded, but only after the intervention of the Supreme Court. This observation set the stage for the Court’s subsequent directions, including the unusual order to seize the Secretary’s steno book.

Registrar General’s Report and Court’s Findings

The report submitted by the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court laid bare a troubling chain of events. It confirmed that the order impugned, dated 31 July 2025, had not been uploaded on the High Court website even as late as 20 August 2025. This omission meant that the petitioner was unable to access the order while filing his special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

The Registrar General sought an explanation from the Judge’s Secretary only on 22 August 2025. This delay in initiating inquiry was noted critically by the Supreme Court, which observed that immediate action in the matter had not been taken. The Court underlined that timely reporting in such cases is essential, especially when litigants are deprived of access to judicial orders.

The Secretary, Mr. Sham Sunder, responded on the same day, i.e., 22 August 2025. However, his explanation avoided the crucial question: he did not state when the order was actually uploaded. Instead, he confined himself to noting that the Hon’ble Judge was undergoing medical procedures and surgery during the period between 1 August and 20 August 2025. The Court recorded that such an explanation did not discharge the responsibility to clarify the precise status of the order.

The Registrar General eventually forwarded this explanation to the Supreme Court on 25 August 2025. By that time, the order in question had been uploaded, but this fact too was not mentioned in the Secretary’s response. This sequence of delayed explanations and vague replies led the Court to remark that the process followed by the High Court administration was unsatisfactory and lacked urgency.

Drawing from the record, the Supreme Court concluded that “it appears that the order impugned was not passed on 31st July, 2025, in fact, it was passed after the order by this Court.” This categorical observation signaled the Court’s grave concern that the High Court’s order might have been backdated. Notably, the judgment itself did not cite any precedents or authorities in support of its findings, underscoring that the order was driven entirely by the facts before the bench and the need to preserve judicial integrity.

Supreme Court’s Directions

Confronted with the unexplained delay and lack of clarity in the High Court’s handling of the order, the Supreme Court bench adopted an unusual course. It directed that the stenographer’s book maintained by the Secretary to the concerned Judge be seized. This step was ordered to ensure an authentic and verifiable record of when the order was actually typed and corrected, so that no ambiguity remained as to the true date of its preparation.

In addition to the seizure of the steno book, the Court instructed that a discreet inquiry be undertaken into the matter. The purpose of this inquiry, as recorded in the order, was to determine the precise date on which the order was typed and corrected on the personal computer. To further strengthen the verification process, the Court called upon the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to generate a report regarding the digital record of the typing and uploading of the order. Importantly, the Court required that the results of this inquiry and the NIC report be placed before it in the form of an affidavit.

Alongside these investigative directions, the Court also proceeded with the procedural aspects of the case. It issued notice to the respondent-State of Haryana, making the notice returnable in four weeks. Counsel appearing for the complainant, respondent no. 3, waived the requirement of formal service, ensuring that the proceedings could continue without delay.

Finally, mindful of the immediate concerns of the petitioner, the bench extended interim protection. It directed that, subject to the petitioner’s cooperation in the ongoing investigation, no coercive steps be taken against him in connection with FIR No. 155 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025 registered at Police Station Dabua, Faridabad, Haryana. This protection balanced the need to preserve the petitioner’s rights while ensuring that the investigation itself could proceed unhindered.

Why This Order Matters

The significance of this order lies in the fact that the Supreme Court treated the delay in uploading not as a minor administrative lapse but as a matter touching the credibility of the judicial process itself. By directing the seizure of the Judge’s Secretary’s steno book, the Court elevated the issue from a routine clerical irregularity to one of judicial accountability. The order made it clear that when doubts arise about whether an order was truly passed on the date it bears, such doubts must be addressed with complete transparency and supported by verifiable records. This is why the Court went so far as to call for a discreet inquiry and a report from the National Informatics Centre, steps rarely seen in matters relating to court administration.

For the petitioner, the consequences of the High Court’s delay were direct and serious. The order rejecting anticipatory bail, though shown as dated 31 July 2025, was not available to him even when he filed his special leave petition on 16 August 2025. When the matter was heard on 20 August, the order was still not uploaded, leaving the petitioner to approach the highest court without access to the very decision he sought to challenge. The Supreme Court noted this troubling state of affairs, highlighting how the petitioner was compelled to pursue his legal remedies in a vacuum. In effect, the delayed uploading denied him the ability to meaningfully contest the High Court’s decision.

At a broader level, the Court’s directions open up a crucial institutional question: if an order shown as passed on a particular date is in fact typed and uploaded much later, what does this mean for the credibility of judicial records? The Court’s observation that the impugned order was not passed on 31 July 2025, but rather “after the order by this Court,” underscores the seriousness of the issue. By probing into the very process of typing and uploading, the Supreme Court has signaled that transparency is integral to judicial functioning, and that unexplained opacity cannot be allowed to cast doubt on the integrity of court proceedings

Conclusion

The order of 29 August 2025 in Ajay Maini v. State of Haryana & Ors. is remarkable not because it dealt with anticipatory bail, but because it turned the spotlight inward, on the very functioning of the judicial system. By questioning the unexplained delay in uploading the High Court’s order and directing seizure of the Judge’s Secretary’s steno book, the Supreme Court underscored that accountability in the justice system extends beyond pronouncing judgments, it encompasses the administrative mechanisms that make those judgments accessible. In doing so, the Court drew a sharp line: delays or ambiguities that affect a litigant’s ability to pursue remedies cannot be brushed aside as mere technical lapses.

This intervention also highlights the human cost of administrative opacity. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court without even a copy of the High Court’s order, compelled to contest a rejection of anticipatory bail on incomplete information. Such a situation strikes at the very heart of fairness in litigation. The Court’s recognition of this reality, coupled with its direction that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pending further inquiry, balanced individual rights with the institutional need for scrutiny. The message is clear: transparency is not optional but an essential safeguard of justice.

Finally, the order raises a larger institutional lesson. If a judicial order, dated one day, is found to have been typed and uploaded only after higher court proceedings have begun, it risks eroding public trust in the reliability of judicial records. The Supreme Court’s directive for a discreet inquiry and affidavit-based reporting reflects a conscious effort to preserve that trust. In the long run, the case serves as a reminder that justice is not only about what is decided, but also about how and when those decisions are communicated. In the digital age, timely and authentic uploading of judicial orders is as much a part of delivering justice as the judgment itself.

---

[1] (SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 45855/2025)