Registry Cannot Refuse Numbering on “Maintainability”: Mandatory Numbering “Subject to Maintainability” and Listing Before the Roster Judge

1. Introduction

In M.RAJKUMAR v. THE DIRECTOR (Madras High Court, 08.04.2026), the petitioner, M. Rajkumar, invoked Article 226 seeking wide-ranging directions: (i) action by Income Tax authorities to initiate prosecution under the Income-tax Act (including Section 276C), (ii) registration of an FIR for alleged IPC offences (including Sections 420, 467, 470, 471, 120B), and (iii) referral for action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

However, the matter was placed at the SR (Scrutiny Register) stage “for maintainability” because the Registry had not numbered it, expressing doubt about maintainability. The core issue before the Division Bench (Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan) was not the merits of the tax/IPC/PMLA allegations, but a procedural question: can the High Court Registry refuse to number a petition on the ground of maintainability?

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that the issue is settled: maintainability is for the Court, not the Registry. The Registry’s role is confined to checking whether filings are in order under procedural rules (formatting, documents, affidavits, pagination, court fee, etc.), not deciding whether a petition is legally maintainable.

The Bench issued explicit operational directions:

  • The Registry shall not refuse to number any case on the ground of maintainability.
  • If papers are in order but the Registry doubts maintainability, it must number the case with an endorsement: “numbered subject to maintainability”.
  • The case should then be placed before the concerned Roster Judge under the caption “for maintainability,” along with objections and compliance details.
  • The Registrar General was directed to circulate the order to all concerned Registry sections to ensure compliance.

The immediate consequence was a direction to number the present writ petition with the endorsement and list it appropriately.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) P.Surendran v. State, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 154

This is the controlling authority. The Supreme Court in P.Surendran v. State arose from the Madras High Court Registry’s refusal to number a petition. The Supreme Court held that the Registry cannot exercise “judicial power” by determining maintainability, since that function lies exclusively with the Court. The quoted passage in the present order reiterates the principle that judicial functions cannot be delegated to Registry staff, and the proper course is to number and place the matter before a Bench.

The present judgment operationalizes P.Surendran at the ground level by restating, in directive form, what must happen in day-to-day filing practice.

(b) District Bar Association Dehradun Vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Others, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 672

This case is cited as the foundation for the Grievance Redressal Committee mechanism. While P.Surendran supplies the substantive rule (Registry cannot decide maintainability), District Bar Association Dehradun Vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Others explains the institutional framework through which procedural grievances between the Bar and Registry can be addressed and standardized.

The Madras High Court’s Grievance Redressal Committee, constituted pursuant to this Supreme Court decision, resolved that: the Registry must number petitions if papers are in order, and doubts about maintainability must be left to the Judge—often by numbering “subject to maintainability.” The present judgment treats that resolution as an already-settled administrative complement to the binding judicial rule in P.Surendran.

(c) S.Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu [S.L.P.(Crl.)Diary No.33621 of 2025]

This decision is used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court has continued to supervise compliance with P.Surendran and related reforms. The order dated 05.08.2025 (as extracted) records a compliance report stating that petitions will be numbered subject to maintainability and placed before the Roster Judge to decide maintainability. The Supreme Court then directed that this approach “shall be implemented by the High Court.”

The present judgment thus treats the rule not as mere best practice, but as part of a chain of binding directions reinforced by the Supreme Court’s subsequent intervention.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The judgment’s reasoning turns on a clear separation between:

  • Administrative/ministerial scrutiny (Registry): ensuring papers meet procedural requirements and are “in order.”
  • Judicial determination (Court): deciding whether the petition is maintainable in law (jurisdiction, locus, alternative remedy, limitation, statutory bars, etc.).

The Court notes persistent non-compliance despite: (i) P.Surendran v. State, (ii) the Grievance Redressal Committee resolution, (iii) Supreme Court reinforcement in S.Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, and (iv) the Registrar General’s Circular in R.O.C.No.77113- A/2025/F1 dated 28.08.2025. This repeated recurrence is why the Bench issues fresh, unambiguous directions with a circulation mandate.

Importantly, the Court does not decide whether the petitioner’s substantive prayers (tax prosecution/FIR/PMLA referral) are maintainable; it restores the correct process: number first, then judicially decide maintainability.

3.3 Impact

The judgment’s significance lies in procedural governance and access to justice:

  • Access and accountability: A refusal to number can function like an unappealable dismissal at the threshold; requiring numbering ensures judicial oversight and reasoned orders.
  • Uniform registry practice: By reiterating “numbered subject to maintainability,” the Court standardizes how doubts are handled.
  • Reduction of invisible denials: Litigants gain a docketed case number and a court listing, preventing disputes from being stalled in scrutiny.
  • Institutional compliance: The direction to circulate the order strengthens internal enforcement and provides a reference point for future deviations.

For future cases, this order will likely be cited whenever petitions are held back at the SR stage on maintainability concerns. It may also reduce avoidable Supreme Court interventions by improving first-level compliance.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Maintainability: Whether a court can/should entertain a petition at all (for example, due to lack of jurisdiction or availability of an alternative remedy). This is a legal decision and must be made by a judge.
  • Numbering of a case: Assigning an official case number after procedural scrutiny. Without numbering, a matter effectively does not enter the court’s judicial pipeline.
  • SR stage: An initial scrutiny stage before formal registration/numbering, typically used to check filing defects.
  • Roster Judge: The judge/bench assigned matters as per the Chief Justice’s roster allocation. Questions like maintainability are to be placed before this judge/bench.
  • “Numbered subject to maintainability”: A procedural device meaning the case is registered, but the court will first decide if it is legally maintainable before hearing merits.
  • Writ of mandamus (Article 226): A constitutional direction to a public authority to perform a public/statutory duty. Whether it is appropriate in a given case is a maintainability/merits question for the Court.

5. Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s order in M.RAJKUMAR v. THE DIRECTOR reinforces a clear procedural rule with institutional consequences: the Registry cannot refuse to number petitions on “maintainability” grounds, since maintainability is a judicial function. The only permissible course, where papers are otherwise in order, is to number the petition (if needed, “subject to maintainability”) and place it before the Roster Judge to decide maintainability through a judicial order. This strengthens access to justice, ensures transparency, and aligns Registry practice with binding Supreme Court directives.