02 Guides · Article 2 of 5

Special Leave Petition filing defects: what the Supreme Court Registry checks before registration

Why procedural defects recur in Special Leave Petitions, and what the scrutiny check lists actually cover

Published by Nyave Research. Prepared from the Supreme Court Rules, the Registry's Handbook, its published check lists, prescribed forms and circulars cited below.

Published 18 September 2026Last reviewed 18 September 202611 min read

This article is general information about procedure. It is not legal advice, and it does not replace the judgment of an Advocate-on-Record or the discretion of the Supreme Court Registry.

A defect is procedural, but its consequence is real

When the Supreme Court Registry records a defect against a Special Leave Petition, it is not passing judgment on the petition's merits. It is recording that some part of the filing set, as presented, does not conform to the Rules and practice of the Court.¹ The scrutiny Assistant's instruction is to check whether the case "conforms with the Rules and practice of the Court or is defective"; whether special leave should be granted is a question for the Court when the petition comes up for admission.²

The distinction matters because the consequence of a defect is procedural too, and it is felt immediately. A petition that has been presented carries a diary number, but it is registered only "if, on a scrutiny the document is found in order".³ Where defects are notified, the ordinary path to registration and listing pauses until they are removed and the filing is re-presented and scrutinised again.⁴ For the people behind the petition, the result is additional work and additional time before the plea is considered on admission. Where the petition concerns bail or custody, that time may be spent in custody. (The overall filing-to-listing sequence is explained in Article 1 of this series.)

This article looks at the defects themselves: what they are, what the Registry checks, the principal categories of procedural defect, why they occur in professionally prepared filings, and what Nyave's analysis of filings shows about how common they are.

What is a Special Leave Petition filing defect?

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 use the word in a procedural sense. Where a document presented for filing "is found to be defective", it is placed before the Registrar after notice to the party, who may decline to receive it "if, in his opinion, the mandatory requirements of the rules are not satisfied", or allow time for the defect to be rectified.⁵ The Registrar's standing power is to allow time "for doing any other act necessary to bring the plaint, appeal, petition or other proceeding in conformity with the rules and practice of the Court".⁶ The Handbook, in the same vein, directs that if a case is found defective the defects are entered in the computer and notified to the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) so that they can be removed.⁷ The Registry's published check lists call the same items "defaults".⁸

A filing defect is therefore a recorded non-conformity between the filing set and the applicable procedural requirements, identified at scrutiny. It helps to keep four neighbouring matters distinct, because the sources treat them differently:

Limitation. Whether the petition is within time is reported separately at scrutiny (the Assistant "generate[s] limitation report").⁹ A time-barred petition is not "cured"; it requires an application for condonation of delay, with affidavit and court fee, and the Court decides that application, after notice to the respondent.¹⁰
Court fee. Deficient court fee is dealt with under its own rule: the Registrar or Taxing Officer decides any question about the proper fee, and a bona fide deficiency may be made good within a time the Registrar allows.¹¹ The check lists nonetheless place court fee first among the points scrutinised.¹²
Maintainability. Where the scrutiny Assistant considers a case not maintainable, the case is placed before senior officers and, where necessary, the Registrar or the Judge in Chambers. It is not treated as an ordinary defect to be notified and cured.¹³
The merits. Whether leave should be granted is for the Court at admission.²

What the Registry checks before registration

The scrutiny framework has three layers. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 set the requirements: Order VIII on the form and presentation of documents; Order XXI (civil) and Order XXII (criminal) on what a Special Leave Petition must contain and what must accompany it; Order XV on petitions generally.¹⁴ The Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, in its 2017 edition as updated on 6 October 2025, converts those requirements into office procedure and carries the Registry's own check list for the scrutiny and processing of main cases.¹⁵ Registry circulars then adjust the practice: most recently, by a circular of 9 January 2025 effective 21 January 2025, the Registry issued a 17-item Check List for Scrutiny Assistants at the Filing Counter (Annexure C) and a 15-item Advocate's Check List certified by the AOR (Annexure D), "with a view to facilitate speedier verification of matters for their early listing".¹⁶ Both are published on the Court's Default List page, together with the circular.⁸

Annexure D matters for what follows. It ends with a declaration by the AOR: "I hereby declare that I have personally verified the petition and its contents and it is in conformity with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. I certify that the above requirements of this Check List have been complied with."¹⁷ Scrutiny is therefore a second check of a set that the AOR has already certified.

The Registry's own check lists, as revised on 9 January 2025.

The full lists, 17 and 15 items

Check List for Scrutiny Assistants at Filing Counter (Annexure C)

1	Whether the prescribed court fee has been filed?
2	Whether the original set of petition and the application bear the signatures of the Advocate on-record/party in-person?
3	(i) Whether the addresses of the parties and their representation are complete and set out properly and whether detailed cause title has been mentioned in the impugned judgment and if not, whether the memo of parties has been filed, if required?(ii) Whether the cause title of the petition corresponds to that of the impugned judgment and names of parties therein?(iii) Whether the petitioner has specified the proper department and address of the Union of India or the State Govt. on whom the notice is required to be served?(iv) If a party in the court below has died, whether application for bringing LRs on record, application for condonation of delay in seeking substitution and application involving setting aside abatement, indicating the date of death, relationship, age and addresses alongwith affidavit and court fee has been filed?(v) Whether the mobile phone numbers and e-Mails of the parties have been mentioned in the Vakalatnama and cause title.
4	Whether an affidavit of the petitioner/authorized person and Pairokar (in criminal matters) in support of the petition/appeal/application has been filed, properly attested and identified?
5	If there are any vernacular documents/portions/lines and translation of such documents are not filed, whether application for exemption from filing Official Translation, with affidavit and court fee, has been filed?
6	Whether the petition contains a statement in terms of Order XXI/XXII of Supreme Court Rules as to whether the petitioner has filed any petition against the impugned order/judgment earlier, and if so, the result thereof stated in the petition?
7	(i) Whether the Vakalatnama has been duly executed by the petitioner(s) and accepted by the Advocate on-record and Memo of Appearance filed?(ii) If a petitioner is represented through power of attorney, whether the power of attorney in English/translated copy has been filed and whether application for permission to appear before the court has also been filed?(iii) Whether the writ petition is filed by a body registered under any Act or Rules? If yes, is copy of the Registration Certificate filed?(iv) Whether the person filing writ petition for such incorporated body has authority to file the petition? If yes, is proof of such authority filed?
8	Whether the petitioner in person has filed an application for seeking permission to appear and argue in person indicating reasons why he/she cannot engage an advocate and if he/she is willing to accept advocate who can be appointed for him by the Court?
9	(i) In matters involving sentence to a term of imprisonment, whether the petitioner has stated that he has surrendered OR application for exemption from surrendering has been filed?(ii) Whether as a proof of surrender, the certified copy of the order of the Court in which he has surrendered or a certificate of competent officer of the jail in which he is undergoing the sentence has been filed?(iii) Whether, in undertrial cases where Vakalatnama attested by competent jail authority as proof of surrender has not been filed separately in respect of all the petitioners, an application for exemption from filing separate such proof of surrender has been filed?
10	Whether the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that there is no personal gain/private motive or oblique reason in filing the Public Interest Litigation?
11	Whether columns Nos. 6 and 7 of Listing Proforma duly filled in?
12	The contents of the petition, applications and accompanying documents are clear, legible and typed in double space on one side of the paper.
13	If the petition is time barred, application for condonation of delay mentioning the no. of days of delay, with affidavit and court fee has been filed.
14	The English version of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, bye laws, orders etc. referred to in the impugned judgment/order has been filed as Appendix to the SLP.
15	If any identical matter is pending/disposal of by the Hon. Supreme Court, the complete particulars of such matters have been given.
16	The statement in terms of the Order XIX Rule 3(1) of Supreme Court Rules, 2013, has been given in the Petition of Appeal.
17	Whether a Bank Draft of Rs.50,000/- or 50% of the amount, whichever is less, has been deposited by the person intending to appeal, if required to be paid as per the order of the NCDRC, in terms of Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/50% of the amount in terms of Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Advocate's Check List, to be certified by Advocate-on-Record (Annexure D)

1	SLP (C) has been filed in Form No. 28 with certificate.
2	The Petition is as per the provisions of Order XV Rule 1.
3	The papers of SLP have been arranged as per Order XXI, Rule (3)(1)(f).
4	Brief list of dates/events has been filed.
5	Paragraphs and pages of paper books have been numbered consecutively and correctly noted in Index.
6	Proper and required number of paper books (1+1) have been filed.
7	The particulars of the impugned judgment passed by the court(s) below are uniformly written in all the documents.
8	In case of appeal by certificate the appeal is accompanied by judgment and decree appealed from and order granting certificate.
9	The Annexures referred to in the petition are true copies of the documents before the court(s) below and are filed in chronological order as per List of Dates.
10	The annexures referred to in the petition are filed and indexed separately and not marked collectively.
11	In SLP against the order passed in Second Appeal, copies of the orders passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have been filed.
12	The complete listing proforma has been filled in, signed and included in the paper books.
13	In a petition (PIL) filed under clause (d) of Rule 12(1) Order XXXVIII, the petitioner has disclosed:(a) his full name, complete postal address, e-mail address, phone number, proof regarding personal identification, occupation and annual income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Card number, if any;(b) the facts constituting the cause of action;(c) the nature of injury caused or likely to be caused to the public;(d) the nature and extent of personal interest, if any, of the petitioner(s);(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners, which has or could have a legal nexus with the issue(s) involved in the Public Interest Litigation.
14	In case of appeals under Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the petitioner/appellant has moved before the Armed Forces Tribunal for granting certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
15	All the paperbooks to be filed after curing the defects shall be in order.

Both lists as published with the Circular F. No. 2/Judl/2025 dated 9 January 2025, effective 21 January 2025, in the Registry's own words.¹⁶

Registry scrutiny focuses on whether the assembled filing set conforms to the applicable procedural requirements. It is not an adjudication of whether the legal grounds ultimately justify the grant of special leave. Form No. 28, the prescribed form of a Special Leave Petition, is one document among many: the list of dates, the certified copy of the impugned judgment, the annexures and their index, the affidavit, the vakalatnama, the listing proforma and any applications all travel together, and the check lists test whether they agree with one another.¹⁸

Principal categories of filing defects

The categories below group the items on the Registry's check lists and the Rules they rest on. They are a reader's map, not the Registry's own taxonomy, and they are not exhaustive.

Identity and authorityparties, cause title, representation, signatures, vakalatnama
Affidavits and certificationsexecution, attestation, dates, the AOR's declarations
Judgments, annexures and translationsthe impugned order, certified copies, translations
Pagination, index and document consistencypage and paragraph numbering, the index, arrangement
Court fee, limitation and applicationsfee, limitation report, the applications the case needs
Case-specific requirementssurrender, prescribed forms, proforma, legibility

Six groups of checks, drawn from the Registry's Check List for Scrutiny Assistants (Annexure C), the Advocate's Check List (Annexure D) and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. A reader's map, not the Registry's taxonomy.

Identity and authority. The Registry checks whether the parties, addresses, cause title and representation are complete and consistent with the impugned judgment. It also examines signatures, the vakalatnama, the Advocate-on-Record's acceptance and any authority through which a party acts.¹⁹²⁰

Affidavits and certifications. The supporting affidavit must be filed, properly attested and identified. Its execution, date and references must correspond with the petition it verifies. The filing may also require prescribed certificates or declarations from the Advocate-on-Record.²²²³

Judgments, annexures and translations. The filing must include the required copy of the impugned judgment or order. Annexures must be properly identified and supported, and documents in a language other than English require the prescribed translation or an appropriate exemption application.²⁴²⁵³⁰

Pagination, index and document consistency. Paragraphs and pages must be numbered correctly; the index must match the paper book; and annexures must be arranged, numbered and indexed as required. These checks compare the index, petition, list of dates, annexures and page references rather than reading any one document in isolation.²⁶²⁸²⁹

Court fee, limitation and accompanying applications. The Registry checks court fee and reports limitation. Where the circumstances require an application—for example, condonation of delay, substitution, exemption from filing a certified copy or permission to appear in person—the filing set must contain the relevant application and supporting material.³¹³²

Case-specific and prescribed requirements. Criminal matters may engage surrender-related requirements. Other checks concern the prescribed Special Leave Petition form, statements about earlier petitions, the listing proforma, statutory provisions, legibility, formatting and completeness.³³³⁴³⁵

Read across, the pattern is plain. Few of these checks can be completed by reading one document. Most compare the petition with the judgment, the index with the pages, the affidavit with the petition, the annexures with the list of dates, or the vakalatnama with the cause title.

Why defects occur despite professional review

None of this is unknown to the people who file Special Leave Petitions. AORs certify that they have personally verified the petition and its compliance with the applicable requirements. The difficulty is not an absence of professional review; it is the operational burden of reconciling a large, interconnected filing set against requirements that vary and are periodically updated.¹⁷

A Special Leave Petition filing set can run to several hundred pages and contain multiple interdependent documents. The same facts—the parties, the particulars of the impugned judgment, the dates and the page references—may appear across the petition, list of dates, index, affidavit, vakalatnama and listing proforma, and the check lists ask whether those references agree.³⁷ The requirements also vary with the case: criminal matters add surrender and pairokar requirements, second appeals add lower-court orders, and matters with vernacular records add translation requirements.³⁸ The Rules and Registry practice are also amended or supplemented through notifications and circulars.³⁹ The work is often done under filing deadlines and distributed across the people preparing different parts of the set.

A manual reconciliation of a large filing set against requirements that are periodically amended or supplemented is difficult to perform consistently under filing deadlines. A separate, systematic and source-linked verification of the assembled set before presentation can support the AOR's professional review.

What Nyave's filing analysis shows

Before writing product code, Nyave manually analysed the recorded defects across more than 2,000 Supreme Court Special Leave Petitions. The figures below describe Nyave's own dataset and nothing beyond it.⁴⁰

Scope. Recorded defects across more than 2,000 Special Leave Petitions were analysed manually, comprising more than 14,000* recorded defect instances.
Units used. For the summary figures below, each Special Leave Petition filing is counted once when measuring whether at least one recorded defect was present. Individual defect records are counted separately when describing the number of defect instances.
Defect rate. Within Nyave's dataset, 97.4%* of the filings analysed had at least one recorded defect.
Defects per filing. Among filings with at least one recorded defect, the median was six recorded defects per filing.

Recorded defects across: 2,000+ Special Leave Petitions,analysed manually
Within Nyave's dataset: 97.4%*of analysed filings had at least one recorded defect
Among filings with defects: 6median recorded defects

Figures are rounded and based on Nyave's own dataset. The dataset is not a random sample of all Special Leave Petitions and should not be read as an official prevalence estimate.

Nyave manually analysed the recorded defects across more than 2,000 Supreme Court Special Leave Petitions.

Two limits should be read with those figures. First, the dataset is Nyave's own, assembled for the purpose of building a verification tool; it is not a random sample of all Special Leave Petitions filed in the period and it is not an official estimate of how often Special Leave Petitions are found defective. Second, "recorded defect" means a defect the Registry noted at scrutiny, as captured in the dataset; it says nothing about how serious any individual defect was or how long it took to remove.

*Figures are rounded and based on Nyave's own dataset. The dataset is not a random sample of all Special Leave Petitions and should not be read as an official prevalence estimate.

What the patterns mean

It is worth being exact about what follows from this and what does not.

What the Rules and check lists require is set out above: a filing set that conforms, document by document and across documents, to the Rules and the Court's practice.

What Nyave's dataset shows is that recorded defects appeared in nearly all the filings analysed, and filings with recorded defects generally contained more than one.

What Nyave infers is narrower than it might seem. The pattern does not show that AORs are careless, that the Registry is slow, that every defect causes the same delay, or that every recorded defect could have been prevented. It shows that recorded defects were recurring rather than isolated within the analysed set. Many of the relevant checks compare information across documents; because the Registry's feedback ordinarily arrives after submission, a systematic check of those points before submission could move at least some of that finding-out earlier.

What Nyave's product does is described below, and it is deliberately limited.

Where pre-filing verification fits

Pre-filing verification is a category of check, not a product name. It works on the completed filing set rather than on a draft. It tests the set against the applicable procedural requirements, the Rules, the Handbook and the current circulars, for potential inconsistencies of the kind the Registry's check lists look for. Its findings should be source-linked, so that the AOR can see which Rule, check-list item or circular a finding rests on and decide what to do. It supports the AOR's own review and certification; it does not replace them. It does not replace the Registry's scrutiny, which remains the Registry's decision. It does not determine the merits, and it cannot guarantee registration or acceptance.

Where Nyave fits

Nyave is building deterministic pre-filing verification for Supreme Court Special Leave Petition filings. An AOR uploads the completed filing set as a single PDF; the platform checks it against a procedural rule base drawn from the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Registry's Handbook and its circulars, and returns a report of potential defects, each with its source reference.⁴¹ Detection is deterministic: it runs on a rule engine, not on an AI model. AI may be used to explain a finding in plain language; it does not decide whether a defect exists.⁴² The report does not give legal advice. The Advocate-on-Record retains professional responsibility for the filing, and Registry officers retain their discretion.⁴³

Advocates-on-Record and lawyers can learn more about Nyave's approach or sign up at nyave.in.

See a real report: one real filing, 279 pages, checked by Nyave

Frequently asked questions

What is a filing defect in a Special Leave Petition?

A recorded non-conformity between the filing set and the Rules and practice of the Court, identified at Registry scrutiny and notified to the Advocate-on-Record for removal.⁵⁷

Does a filing defect determine the strength of the Special Leave Petition on merits?

No. A filing defect records a procedural non-conformity identified during scrutiny. Whether special leave should be granted is considered by the Court at admission.¹²

What does the Supreme Court Registry check?

The points on its published check lists: court fee, signatures, parties and cause title, affidavits, vakalatnama, translations, the statement on earlier petitions, surrender in criminal matters, the listing proforma, legibility, condonation of delay where the petition is time-barred, and the appendix of statutory provisions, among others.⁸¹⁶

Can one filing contain multiple defects?

A filing may receive more than one recorded defect. Within Nyave's dataset, filings with at least one recorded defect had a median of six recorded defects.⁴⁰

Can filing defects be checked before submission?

The AOR already certifies the filing before presentation under Annexure D.¹⁷ A separate pre-filing verification of the assembled set against the same requirements can identify potential inconsistencies earlier; it does not replace the AOR's certification or the Registry's scrutiny.

Primary sources

Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure (2017 edition, updated as on 6 October 2025), Chapter XI, Filing and Processing of Cases, Stage Three. Supreme Court Handbook (sci.gov.in)
Handbook, Chapter XI, section VIII, item 2; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rule 9(1). Supreme Court Rules (sci.gov.in)
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VIII Rule 6(2).
Handbook, Chapter XI, Stage Three, item (v) and Stage Four (re-filed cases).
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VIII Rule 6(3).
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order III Rule 8(vii).
Handbook, Chapter XI, Stage Three, item (v).
Supreme Court of India, "Default List" page, carrying the Check List for Scrutiny Assistants at Filing Counter (Annexure C), the Advocate's Check List (Annexure D) and the circular of 9 January 2025: Default List (sci.gov.in).
Handbook, Chapter XI, Stage Three, item (iv).
Annexure C, item 13; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rule 1 and Rule 9(1), proviso.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VIII Rule 8(4) and (5).
Annexure C, item 1; Handbook, Chapter XI, Stage Three, item (ii).
Handbook, Chapter XI, Stage Three, item (vii); section IV, item (ii).
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Orders VIII, XV, XXI and XXII.
Handbook, Chapter XI, section 10, Modified Check List for Scrutiny and Processing of Main Cases.
Supreme Court of India, Circular F. No. 2/Judl/2025 dated 9 January 2025.
Advocate's Check List (Annexure D), certification clause.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rules 3, 4 and 5; Form No. 28, Fourth Schedule.
Annexure C, item 3(i) to (iii) and (v); Annexure D, item 7.
Annexure C, items 2 and 7(i) and (ii).
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV Rule 7(b); Circular F. No. 34/Judl./2022 dated 23 May 2022.
Annexure C, item 4; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rule 3(1)(e) and Rule 4(ii).
Handbook, Chapter X, Preparation for Filing of Cases, items 17 to 19; Chapter XI, General Notes to the Modified Check List.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rule 4(i) and Rule 5.
Annexure D, item 11.
Annexure D, items 3, 5 and 6; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XV Rule 1(1) and Order XXI Rule 3(1)(f).
Circular F. No. 11/Judl./2024 dated 4 May 2024; Circular F. No. 05/Judl./2025 dated 17 January 2025.
Annexure D, items 9 and 10.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rule 3(1)(d)(i).
Handbook, Chapter X, item 5; Annexure C, item 5.
Annexure C, item 1; Handbook, Chapter XI, Stage Three, item (ii).
Annexure C, items 13, 3(iv) and 8; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order V Rule 1(19), proviso.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXII Rule 5; Annexure C, item 9.
Annexure D, items 1 and 12; Annexure C, items 6, 11 and 14; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d)(iii) and 3(2); Circular F. No. 03/Judl/2025 dated 16 January 2025 (Modified Listing Proforma).
Annexure C, item 12; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VIII Rule 1; Handbook, Chapter X, items 3 and 4, and Chapter XI, section I.
Circular F. No. 01/Judl./2020 dated 5 March 2020.
Annexure C, item 3(ii); Annexure D, items 5, 7 and 9; Handbook, Chapter X, items 17 to 19.
Annexure C, items 4, 5 and 9; Annexure D, item 11.
Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2019, G.S.R. 670(E); the circulars cited at notes 16, 21, 27, 34 and 36.
Nyave, Data page (dataset figures as published, marked *).
Nyave, Home, Technology and Product pages.
Nyave, Home and Technology pages.
Nyave report disclaimer, as shown on Product.

This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Verification against the Supreme Court Registry's current requirements is for the Advocate-on-Record before filing. Procedural texts change; readers should consult the current Rules, Handbook and circulars on the Supreme Court's website. See also Nyave's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Explore the series

Article 1What happens after a Special Leave Petition is filed in the Supreme Court?
Article 2Special Leave Petition filing defects: what the Supreme Court Registry checks before registration
Article 3Supreme Court Special Leave Petition filing checklist
Article 4Special Leave Petition: what it is and what it contains
Article 5The Special Leave Petition format, part by part