- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Rectification allowed
Headnote
Notice issued by the Registrar quashed, with directions on how section 57(4) is to be worked. The Court held that section 57(4) does not qualify the source from which the Registrar may gather information, so information may come from anyone including a person aggrieved, since it is usually such a person who would know of something that sullies the register. The Registrar must treat what he receives as information and not as a complaint, however it is described, and must filter it to ensure the appeal to his suo motu power is not a camouflage for private interests, in much the same way as the intent behind a purported public interest litigation is tested. If the information would support a private rectification under section 57(1) or (2), the Registrar should step back. Section 57(4) contemplates no pre-cognizance enquiry; an inquiry is held only once the decision to act suo motu is taken.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.