9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1586 - SC - Indian LawsWhen will the Rip Van Winkleism stop and Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice delivery system? Held that - 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. The appeal is dismissed with costs of ₹ 1,00,000/-.
Issues involved:
1. Dismissal of appeals by the Union of India in the Supreme Court. 2. The conduct of the Union of India in filing repeated appeals. 3. Imposition of costs on the Union of India. 4. Non-compliance with the National Litigation Policy. 5. Engagement of multiple lawyers by the Union of India. 6. Burden on the justice delivery system due to frivolous litigation. Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals by the Union of India The Union of India filed a batch of appeals which were dismissed by the Supreme Court in a judgment dated 8th December, 2017. Subsequently, another appeal on the same subject was filed and dismissed on 9th March, 2018. The Court noted that the Union of India continued to file appeals even after the issue had been concluded, adding to the burden of the justice delivery system. Issue 2: Conduct of the Union of India The Union of India's attitude towards litigation, especially in the Supreme Court, was criticized for being careless and insouciant. Despite previous dismissals, the Union of India filed another appeal well after similar matters were rejected, showcasing a lack of responsibility and concern for the justice system. Costs were imposed to deter such behavior and encourage a more circumspect approach. Issue 3: Imposition of costs To discourage frivolous litigation and ensure accountability, costs of ?1,00,000 were imposed on the Union of India. The Court emphasized the need for the Union of India to shape up its litigation policy and be more considerate of the burden placed on the justice delivery system by pursuing unnecessary cases. Issue 4: Non-compliance with the National Litigation Policy The Court highlighted the Union of India's failure to adhere to the National Litigation Policy, which aims to transform the government into an efficient and responsible litigant. The policy emphasizes the need to focus on core issues, avoid frivolous litigation, and prioritize welfare legislation. The Union of India's disregard for this policy was evident in its repeated filing of appeals and engagement of numerous lawyers. Issue 5: Engagement of multiple lawyers Despite the apparent futility of the appeal, the Union of India engaged 10 lawyers, including senior advocates, creating a significant financial liability. This move was criticized for increasing the burden on taxpayers unnecessarily and failing to consider the outcome of similar cases. The Court questioned the rationale behind such excessive legal representation. Issue 6: Burden on the justice delivery system The Court expressed concern over the unnecessary burden placed on the justice delivery system by frivolous litigation. By engaging in repeated appeals and not withdrawing cases after conclusive judgments, the Union of India was seen as contributing to delays in resolving other pending cases. The Court emphasized the need for the Union of India to fulfill its duties responsibly and consider the impact of its actions on the justice system. This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, providing insights into the Court's observations and directives regarding the conduct of the Union of India in the context of litigation in the Supreme Court.
|
