No. 8754 of 2018 :: Supreme Court of India - Important judgement ......

No. 8754 of 2018 :: Supreme Court of India - Important judgement ......

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2018

(Arising out of Diary No. 8754 of 2018)

Union of India & Ors. .... Appellants

Vs.

Pirthwi Singh & Ors. .... Respondents

WITH

(IA No. 52059 of 2018, IA No. 52058 of 2018, IA. No.52056 of 2018 and

IA No. 52057 of 2018)

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. Delay condoned.

3. The couldn’t-care-less and insouciant attitude of the Union of India

with regard to litigation, particularly in the Supreme Court, has gone a

little too far as this case illustrates.

4. The Union of India had filed a batch of appeals which was

dismissed by this Court by a judgment and order dated 8th December,

2017. The decision is reported as Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn.1

5. After dismissal of the batch of appeals, the Union of India filed yet

another appeal on the same subject being Civil Appeal No. (blank) of

2018 (Diary No. 4893 of 2018) entitled Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. Nk.

Balbir Singh. That appeal came up for consideration before this Court

on 9th March, 2018 and was dismissed following the decision in Balbir

Singh Turn. While dismissing the appeal, it was noted that it was filed

well after several similar matters were dismissed by this Court. The

conduct of the Union of India in filing Civil Appeals/Special Leave

Petitions after the issue is concluded by this Court was not appreciated. It

was noted that the Union of India must take full responsibility for

unnecessarily adding to the burden of the justice delivery system.

6. To ensure that the Union of India is far more circumspect, costs of

Rs.1,00,000/- were imposed and it was observed that the Union of India

must shape up its litigation policy. Unfortunately, the Union of India has

learnt no lesson and has continued its non-cooperative attitude.

7. The present appeal was filed on 8th March, 2018 which is also well

after the decision in Balbir Singh Turn. We would have expected that

with the dismissal of the appeal relating to Balbir Singh Turn and Ex.

1 2017 (14) SCALE 189

Nk. Balbir Singh, the Union of India would take steps to withdraw this

appeal from the Registry of this Court so that it is not even listed and

there is no unnecessary burden on the judges. But obviously, the Union

of India has no such concern and did not withdraw its appeal from the

Registry itself.

8. The Union of India must appreciate that by pursuing frivolous or

infructuous cases, it is adding to the burden of this Court and collaterally

harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through the

sheer volume of numbers. If the Union of India cares little for the justice

delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants,

many of whom have to spend a small fortune in litigating in the Supreme

Court.

9. On 23rd June, 2010 the Union of India released the ‘National Legal

Mission to Reduce Average Pendency Time from 15 Years to 3 Years’ and

this document is called ‘National Litigation Policy’. The vision/mission

of the National Litigation Policy is as follows:

“1. The National Litigation Policy is based on the recognition that

Government and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigants

in courts and Tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transform

Government into an Efficient and Responsible litigant. This policy is

also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the

Government to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental

rights and those in charge of the conduct of Government litigation

should never forget this basic principle.

“EFFICIENT LITIGANT” MEANS

§ Focusing on the core issues involved in the litigation and

addressing them squarely.

§ Managing and conducting litigation in a cohesive, coordinated

and time-bound manner.

§ Ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not

needlessly persevered with.

§ A litigant who is represented by competent and sensitive legal

persons: competent in their skills and sensitive to the facts that

Government is not an ordinary litigant and that a litigation does

not have to be won at any cost.

“RESPONSIBLE LITIGANT” MEANS

§ That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.

§ That false pleas and technical points will not be taken and

shall be discouraged.

§ Ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents will

be placed before the court.

§ That nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will

be no attempt to mislead any court or Tribunal.

2. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The

philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate

decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, “Let the court

decide,” must be eschewed and condemned.

3. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce Government

litigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent in

resolving other pending cases so as to achieve the Goal in the

National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15

years to 3 years. Litigators on behalf of Government have to keep in

mind the principles incorporated in the National mission for judicial

reforms which includes identifying bottlenecks which the

Government and its agencies may be concerned with and also

removing unnecessary Government cases. Prioritisation in litigation

has to be achieved with particular emphasis on welfare legislation,

social reform, weaker sections and senior citizens and other

categories requiring assistance must be given utmost priority.”

[Emphasis supplied by us].

10. None of the pious platitudes in the National Litigation Policy have

been followed indicating not only the Union of India’s lack of concern for

the justice delivery system but scant regard for its own National Litigation Policy.

11. The website of the Department of Justice shows that the National

Litigation Policy, 2010 is being reviewed and formulation of the National

Litigation Policy, 2015 is under consideration. When this will be

finalized is anybody’s guess. There is also an Action Plan to Reduce

Government Litigation which was formulated on 13th June, 2017.

12. Nothing has been finalised by the Union of India for the last almost

about 8 years and under the garb of ease of doing business, the judiciary

is being asked to reform. The boot is really on the other leg.

13. Interestingly, the Action Plan mentions, among others, two

interesting steps to reduce pendency:

(i) Avoid unnecessary filing of appeals –appeals should not be

filed in routine matters – only in cases where there is a

substantial policy matter.

(ii) Vexatious litigation should be immediately withdrawn.

14. These pendency reduction steps (particularly (ii) above) have been

conveniently overlooked as far as this appeal is concerned.

15. To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India has

engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a

Senior Advocate! This is as per the appearance slip submitted to the

Registry of this Court. In other words, the Union of India has created a

huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose

fate can be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in

similar cases. Yet the Union of India is increasing its liability and asking

the taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden for the misadventure.

Is any thought being given to this?

16. The real question is: When will the Rip Van Winkleism stop and

Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice

delivery system?

17. To say the least, this is an extremely unfortunate situation of

unnecessary and avoidable burdening of this Court through frivolous

litigation which calls for yet another reminder through the imposition of

costs on the Union of India while dismissing this appeal. We hope that

someday some sense, if not better sense, will prevail on the Union of

India with regard to the formulation of a realistic and meaningful

National Litigation Policy and what it calls ‘ease of doing business’,

which can, if faithfully implemented benefit litigants across the country.

18. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as before to be

deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four

weeks from today for utilization for juvenile justice issues. Pending I.As.

are also disposed of.

19. List for compliance after five weeks.

................................J

( Madan B. Lokur )

................................J

( Deepak Gupta

New Delhi;

April 24, 2018