Jorhat, March 14: Gauhati High Court has asked all subordinate courts under its jurisdiction to furnish status reports regarding maintenance of necessary registers.
Criminal and civil courts maintain different kinds of registers. On June 26 last year, the high court had issued a circular to all its subordinate courts explaining what registers to maintain and how.
Registers prove that records are being kept in a methodical way and ensure easier access to information.
Sources said the registrar (vigilance) of Gauhati High Court, Robin Phukan, issued a directive on March 12, asking all district and sessions judges and chief judicial magistrates to send the status reports within a month from receipt of the directive.
Non-compliance of the directive would be considered “wilful disobedience” of the high court, the order said.
Phukan’s directive had stated that status reports on court registers should be submitted within 10 days of receipt of the instruction. But if the courts were not following the format and rules prescribed by the June 26, 2013 circular, then the district judges and CJMs should ensure compliance of the same within the next 20 days and submit the report within one month of the receipt of the directive.
Sources said that each court (be it civil or criminal) has to maintain over 10 registers daily while conducting trial of cases. The number of registers each court has to maintain is different with some courts needing to maintain about 20 types of registers.
Judgment register, witnesses and attendance register, court fee register, fine register, daily register of petitions, appeal registers, trial resister of petty cases are some of the registers used in the courts.
Phukan has directed the district judges and CJMs to ensure that all registers are prepared in printed form and if they are not available from government presses, then the judges should “take necessary steps” to print them at private presses by observing necessary formalities.
In July last year, the high court stopped the salary increments of the then CJM of Dhemaji district and a first class judicial magistrate of Golaghat district after a vigilance team discovered that copies of judgments delivered by these judges were not available although the court registers showed otherwise.