When will the Rip Van Winkleism stop? SC urges Centre to wake up as it imposes 1 lakh costs (again)

Confederation of Central Government Gazetted Officers Organisations (CCGGOO) & All India DRDO Technical Officers Association (AIDTOA) welcome the Supreme Court Judgment reimposing costs of Rs1,00,000 on Union of India for its "careless and insouciant attitude" creating "extremely unfortunate situation of unnecessary and avoidable burdening of Supreme Court through frivolous litigation".

 In a judgment passed earlier this week, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta was constrained to re-impose Rs 1 lakh as costs on the Central government after it chose to try its luck in yet another appeal against former soldier Naik Balbir Singh.

While doing so, the Court also pulled up the Centre for dragging its feet over its plans to introduce a National Litigation Policy.

The instant appeal was filed despite the imposition of Rs 1 lakh  as costs by the same Bench on the government last month, while dismissing an earlier unnecessary appeal in the case.

The government’s dogged persistence in the matter provoked the Bench to remark,

“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.”

Given its earlier warning, the Court had expected that the state would withdraw the appeal from the Court Registry, 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,” observed the Bench.

In turn, the government’s attempt to move another round of litigation in the matter prompted the Bench to impose costs of Rs 1 lakh again, with the 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.”

Before parting with the judgment, the Court reiterated that such frivolousor infructuous cases only serve to add to the burden of the Court,collaterally harming other litigants by delaying hearing of their cases through the sheer volume of numbers. It was observed,

“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.”

The Court observed that in the pursuit of such litigation, the government also appeared unmindful of the noble goals it had set in various state policies, including the National Litigation Policy.

“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.”

Rather than following its own goals to reduce case pendency, the Court noted that the government had gone overboard in pursuing a matter which was likely to fail given its history.

“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? 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?”

In this context, the Court also noted that the focus should be on the finalisation and implementation of the government’s litigation policies, rather than calling upon the judiciary to reform alone.

“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. 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.”

The appeal was dismissed on these terms. The Court has ordered that the imposed costs be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks for utilization in juvenile justice issues. The matter has been listed for compliance after five weeks.