Supreme Court Orders Seizure of HC Judge Secretary’s Steno Book

New Delhi, September 1, 2025: The Supreme Court on Monday took the extraordinary step of directing the seizure of the steno book belonging to the secretary of a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge. The directive came in the backdrop of suspicions raised regarding an anticipatory bail order dated July 31, 2025, which, according to the court record, was not uploaded to the official website until August 20. The unusual delay prompted the apex court to examine whether the order had in fact been typed and finalised on the date it was claimed, or much later than stated.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi expressed serious concern over the irregularities, observing that such delays could cast doubt on the integrity of judicial proceedings. The court noted that when the discrepancy was flagged on August 20, an immediate explanation was sought from the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Registrar, in turn, asked the concerned judge’s secretary for clarification. The secretary responded on August 22, explaining that the delay was due to the judge undergoing surgery between August 1 and August 20. However, the reply failed to clarify why the order, supposedly dated July 31, was uploaded nearly three weeks later.

The bench highlighted that the timing of the upload coincided with the submission of the secretary’s explanation, raising suspicions that the order might not have been prepared on July 31 as claimed. To ensure transparency, the Supreme Court ordered a “discreet inquiry” to establish the true timeline of the order’s preparation. The steno book of the judge’s secretary was directed to be seized and scrutinised to verify the actual dates of dictation, typing, and correction of the order. Additionally, the court called for a report from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to ascertain the digital trail, including when the order was typed on the computer and when it was uploaded to the court’s official system. The NIC was instructed to submit its findings in the form of an affidavit.

The Supreme Court further issued a notice to the State of Haryana and reserved the matter for hearing after four weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner, who had moved the apex court after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected, was granted interim protection. The bench ordered that no coercive action should be taken against him in the FIR registered in Faridabad, provided he continues to cooperate with the ongoing inquiry.

This directive underscores the apex court’s determination to ensure accountability and transparency in judicial administration. The unusual nature of the order—directing the seizure of a judge’s secretary’s steno book—marks a rare move in the judicial system. It reflects the seriousness with which the Supreme Court is treating the matter, especially given the potential implications for public trust in the judiciary. The court’s insistence on a forensic-style inquiry, combining scrutiny of handwritten steno notes with digital forensic analysis of the typing and uploading process, demonstrates its resolve to leave no room for doubt regarding the authenticity of court orders.

The case has drawn attention across the legal community, with many viewing it as a reminder that even minor administrative lapses in the judicial process can undermine confidence in the justice delivery system. By stepping in decisively, the Supreme Court has signaled that accountability must extend to every level of judicial functioning—from judges to their support staff—and that transparency is non-negotiable in maintaining the sanctity of court proceedings.

Source