The Supreme Court’s lists move without sentiment. A special leave petition in which counsel does not appear when called, or which sits unrepaired under Registry defects, or in which steps for service are never taken, can be dismissed for non-prosecution — a fate different in kind from dismissal on merits, and, importantly, one from which recovery is possible. Because Delhi’s litigants funnel a large share of the Court’s docket, chambers here see the problem often: a client discovers months later that the petition no longer exists. This explainer sets out what such a dismissal means, and the road back.
The ways an SLP lapses without a hearing
Default of appearance
The matter is called; no one answers for the petitioner. Benches may pass over once, but a second silence — especially in a listed miscellaneous matter — commonly ends in dismissal for non-prosecution.
Uncured Registry defects
Petitions notified with defects must be refiled within the time the Supreme Court Rules and circulars allow. Papers left uncured are treated under the Rules’ regime for defective filings and can stand dismissed or be declared lapsed without ever reaching a Bench.
Steps not taken
After notice is issued, service must be effected: process fee, spare copies, fresh addresses where service fails. Petitions in which the petitioner takes no steps invite dismissal for non-prosecution at the service-review stage.
What the dismissal decides — and what it does not
A default dismissal is procedural. It does not examine the impugned judgment, and it leaves the High Court’s decision operative not because the Supreme Court approved it but because the challenge evaporated. Two consequences follow. First, restoration is conceptually available: the Court is not being asked to review a merits conclusion, only to excuse a procedural failure. Second, until restored, the dismissal is fully effective — interim orders granted in the SLP fall with it, and execution or consequential action in the courts below resumes. A client whose protection depended on an interim stay must treat a default dismissal as an emergency, not an administrative footnote.
Where an interim order stood in the dismissed petition, the restoration application should specifically pray for revival of the interim protection, and — where irreversible steps loom below — for early listing. Restoration of the petition does not automatically resurrect every interim direction unless the order says so.
The restoration application: contents that persuade
Prevention: the office systems that matter
| Failure mode | Preventive habit |
|---|---|
| Listing missed | Independent cause-list tracking of the diary and registration numbers, in addition to the AOR’s systems |
| Defects left uncured | Calendar the refiling deadline from the defect notification date, with escalation before expiry |
| Service steps missed | Diary the office report dates after notice; treat unserved respondents as live tasks with owners |
| Coordination gaps | A written brief-to-AOR protocol fixing who appears on miscellaneous days, and who informs whom of listings |
A note on the respondent’s side
Respondents benefiting from a default dismissal should ensure the record reflects it in the courts below before acting on it, and should respond to any restoration application on the twin fronts the Court weighs: the adequacy of the explanation and prejudice from revival — particularly where third-party rights or completed transactions have intervened since the dismissal. Restoration is discretionary, and intervening equities are its usual counterweight.
Working rules: treat a default dismissal as recoverable but urgent; seek restoration in the same proceedings with a specific, dated explanation; pray expressly for revival of interim protection; and build office systems so the question never arises.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Restoration practice depends on the Supreme Court Rules, current circulars and the record of the particular matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a dismissal for non-prosecution a decision on merits?
No. It records only that the petitioner failed to prosecute — no appearance, uncured defects, or steps not taken. It does not affirm the impugned judgment’s reasoning, and the doctrine of merger does not operate as it would after a merits dismissal. The practical consequence is that restoration, if granted, revives the petition as it stood.
How is restoration sought?
By an application to the Supreme Court in the same proceedings, supported by an affidavit explaining the default — counsel’s illness, a listing communication failure, a clerical lapse in the Advocate-on-Record’s office — together with an application for condonation of the delay in seeking restoration. The explanation must be specific and honest; generic pleas of “inadvertence” fare poorly.
Who is responsible for the appearance in the Supreme Court?
The Advocate-on-Record. Only an AOR can act and file in the Court, and the listing communications flow to the AOR’s registered address. A breakdown between instructing counsel, the AOR and the arguing senior is the commonest anatomy of a default dismissal — and the affidavit must candidly locate the failure.
Can a fresh SLP be filed instead of seeking restoration?
Restoration is the proper course. A fresh petition faces the twin obstacles of limitation — usually long expired — and the disclosure requirement of the earlier dismissal, and filing afresh to sidestep a default dismissal invites serious objection. The remedy lies in the dismissed proceedings themselves.