UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus PIRTHWI SINGH & ORS. on 24 April 2018

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 935

935

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

A

v.

PIRTHWI SINGH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4415-16 of 2018)

B

APRIL 24, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Judicial Deprecation – Frivolous or infructuous cases filedby Union of India – Engagement of huge number of lawyers for thematter involving the issues already settled by binding precedents –CBurdening the Justice Delivery System – Union of India filing matterseven after dismissal of similar matters – Moreover, 10 lawyersengaged creating a huge financial liability for an appeal whosefate could be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders ofdismissal in similar cases – Union of India’s lack of concern for theJustice Delivery System, deprecated – Appeal dismissed with costDof Rs. 1 lakh.

National Litigation Policy, 2010 – Object of, discussed.

Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn 2017 (14) SCALE189 – referred to.

E

Case Law Reference

2017 (14) SCALE 189referred toPara 4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4415-16 of 2018.

F

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2011 in O. A. No.2002 of 2011/Order dated 17.04.2013 in M. A. No. 1309-1310 in O. A.No. 2002 of 2011 and Order dated 03.09.2015 in Review Applicationvide M. A. No. 2475 of 2015 and RA No. 76 of 2015 in O. A. No. 2002of 2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Chandigarh atChandimandir.

G

Sandeep Sethi, ASG, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., NikhilRohatgi, Shashank Khurana, Himanshu Shekar, K. Subba Rao, A. SubbaRao, Ms. Disha Vaish, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellants.

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 ofBIndia with regard to litigation, particularly in the Supreme Court, hasgone a little too far as this case illustrates.

4. The Union of India had filed a batch of appeals which wasdismissed by this Court by a judgment and order dated 8[th] December,2017. The decision is reported as Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn.[1]C

5. After dismissal of the batch of appeals, the Union of India filedyet 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 thisCourt on 9[th] March, 2018 and was dismissed following the decision inDBalbir Singh Turn. While dismissing the appeal, it was noted that itwas filed well after several similar matters were dismissed by this Court.The conduct of the Union of India in filing Civil Appeals/Special LeavePetitions after the issue is concluded by this Court was not appreciated.It was noted that the Union of India must take full responsibility forunnecessarily adding to the burden of the justice delivery system.E

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 Unionof India must shape up its litigation policy.Unfortunately, the Union ofIndia has learnt no lesson and has continued its non-cooperative attitude.

F7. The present appeal was filed on 8[th] March, 2018 which is alsowell after the decision in Balbir Singh Turn. We would have expectedthat with the dismissal of the appeal relating to Balbir Singh Turn andEx. Nk. Balbir Singh, the Union of India would take steps to withdrawthis appeal from the Registry of this Court so that it is not even listed andthere is no unnecessary burden on the judges. But obviously, the UnionGof India has no such concern and did not withdraw its appeal from theRegistry itself.

8. The Union of India must appreciate that by pursuing frivolousor infructuous cases, it is adding to the burden of this Court and collaterally 1 2017 (14) SCALE 189H

harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through thesheer volume of numbers. If the Union of India cares little for thejustice delivery system, it should at least display some concern for litigants,many of whom have to spend a small fortune in litigating in the SupremeCourt.

9. On 23[rd] June, 2010 the Union of India released the ‘NationalLegal Mission to Reduce Average Pendency Time from 15 Years to 3Years’ 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 thatGovernment and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigantsin courts and Tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transformGovernment into an Efficient and Responsible litigant. This policyis also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of theGovernment to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamentalrights and those in charge of the conduct of Government litigationshould never forget this basic principle.

“EFFICIENT LITIGANT” MEANS

Focusing on the core issues involved in the litigation andaddressing them squarely.

Managing and conducting litigation in a cohesive, coordinatedand time-bound manner.

— Ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are notneedlessly persevered with.

A litigant who is represented by competent and sensitive legalpersons: competent in their skills and sensitive to the facts thatGovernment is not an ordinary litigant and that a litigation doesnot 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 shallbe discouraged.

Ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents willbe placed before the court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A That nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will beno attempt to mislead any court or Tribunal.

2. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. Thephilosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimatedecision has to be discarded. The easy approach, “Let the courtBdecide,” must be eschewed and condemned.

3. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce Governmentlitigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent inresolving other pending casesso as to achieve the Goal in theNational Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time fromC15 years to 3 years. Litigators on behalf of Government have tokeep in mind the principles incorporated in the National missionfor judicial reforms which includes identifying bottlenecks whichthe Government and its agencies may be concerned with and alsoremoving unnecessary Government cases. Prioritisation inlitigation has to be achieved with particular emphasis on welfareDlegislation, social reform, weaker sections and senior citizens andother categories requiring assistance must be given utmostpriority.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

10. None of the pious platitudes in the National Litigation Policyhave been followed indicating not only the Union of India’s lack of concernEfor the justice delivery system but scant regard for its own NationalLitigation Policy.

11. The website of the Department of Justice shows that theNational Litigation Policy, 2010 is being reviewed and formulation of theNational Litigation Policy, 2015 is under consideration. When this willFbe finalized is anybody’s guess. There is also an Action Plan to ReduceGovernment Litigation which was formulated on 13[th] June, 2017.

12. Nothing has been finalised by the Union of India for the lastalmost about 8 years and under the garb of ease of doing business, thejudiciary is being asked to reform. The boot is really on the other leg.G13. Interestingly, the Action Plan mentions, among others, twointeresting steps to reduce pendency:

(i) Avoid unnecessary filing of appeals –appeals should not befiled in routine matters – only in cases where there is asubstantial policy matter.H

(ii) Vexatious litigation should be immediately withdrawn.

14. These pendency reduction steps (particularly (ii) above) havebeen conveniently overlooked as far as this appeal is concerned.

15. To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India hasengaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a SeniorAdvocate! This is as per the appearance slip submitted to the Registryof this Court. In other words, the Union of India has created a hugefinancial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fatecan be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal insimilar cases. Yet the Union of India is increasing its liability and askingthe 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 stopand Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justicedelivery system?

17. To say the least, this is an extremely unfortunate situation ofunnecessary and avoidable burdening of this Court through frivolouslitigation which calls for yet another reminder through the imposition ofcosts on the Union of India while dismissing this appeal. We hope thatsomeday some sense, if not better sense, will prevail on the Union ofIndia with regard to the formulation of a realistic and meaningful NationalLitigation Policy and what it calls ‘ease of doing business’, which can, iffaithfully implemented benefit litigants across the country.

18. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as beforeto be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee withinfour weeks from today for utilization for juvenile justice issues. PendingI.As. are also disposed of.

19. List for compliance after five weeks.

Devika Gujral

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H