Government cases clogging courts; implement National Litigation Policy ASAP: Delhi High Court

Litigation by government and its agencies is clogging the judicial system and there is an urgent need to prevent such unnecessary litigation, the Delhi High Court said on Friday while calling upon the Central government to prepare a time-bound action plan for implementation of the National Litigation Policy [Union Of India V. Ms. Kiran Kanojia]..A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took a critical view of the absence of litigation strategy and said the status quo since formulation of ‘National Litigation Policy' in 2010 paints a disheartening picture."More than a decade has passed since the discussion on the issue of a litigation policy commenced and it is unclear as to when the proposed framework or guidelines will be in place. The government must prepare a time-bound action plan for implementation of the ‘National Litigation Policy’ or the guidelines that are under contemplation," the Court said.The essence of good governance lies not just in holding individuals accountable but in creating an environment where unnecessary litigation is avoided, the Court added. "It is against this backdrop that the call for a ‘National Litigation Policy’ and/ or uniform guidelines for governments, departments, and ministries – gains urgency,” the bench said..Further, the government as the largest litigant is expected to be a beacon of propriety and set precedents in litigation ethics, fairness, and judicious use of resources. “An effective litigation policy or guideline is not merely an administrative tool; it is a powerful statement of intent, reflecting the government’s unwavering commitment to the rule of law, equity, and justice,” the Court said.It said the policy should articulate the parameters for initiating or contesting legal actions on behalf of the government and not only aim to prevent frivolous litigation but also prescribe mechanisms to hold officers accountable for their decision.“There is thus an urgent need for a system that prevents unnecessary litigation by engaging in an audit of the decision-making process which leads to such litigation,” the Court said...The judgement was passed in a matter referred by a single-judge for examination of issues concerning government’s accountability and the lack of a ‘National Litigation Policy’. The issue came up in a batch of appeals filed by Indian Railways and Cement Corporation of India..Government entities embroiled in frivolous litigation.The Court said the overwhelming majority of cases currently clogging the judicial system involve either the Central government, State governments, or public sector undertakings (PSUs).“The judiciary is inundated with cases, of which many can be described as frivolous, and sometimes even laden with false assertions. While imposing costs can serve in balancing the scales for private parties, as an effective deterrent mechanism, it does little to fix the systemic issues at play when Government is at fault," the bench stated. Though the Court acknowledged that it cannot venture into the policy domain and create such a policy via judicial guidelines, it also said that such self-imposed limitation will not prevent it from highlighting the issue.“It is our solemn duty to impress upon the Union of India the critical need to act decisively, whether through the issuance of clear & uniform guidelines to various departments or the formalisation of a comprehensive ‘National Litigation Policy’,” said the Court. .It further criticised the government entities for engaging in frivolous litigation and said such conduct not only squanders taxpayers' money but also undermines the very interests of the citizens these entities are meant to serve..Government Officers vs. Institution.The Court said there appears to be a “troubling ethos” and belief among government officers that false claims can be advanced with impunity. Such actions not only perpetuate injustice but also place undue burden on the judiciary and government, the bench opined.“The officials responsible for raising these frivolous claims often escape without any consequences, fuelled by the absence of mechanisms for accountability for such misconduct,” said the Court.The bench said such stark lack of accountability carries significant public implications and amplifies the urgency for systemic reform to prevent such instances from recurring.It said the immediate fault may lie with the officers but called it important to recognize that they operate within an institutional framework. There is a greater onus on the government to institute robust systems of checks, balances, and training that guide individual actions more responsibly, the Court underlined..Audit.The Court batted for a system involving audit of decision-making process behind litigation and said there should be mandatory consultation between the concerned officers of the government body and legal experts towards ensuring that cases involving well-settled issues are not sought to be relitigated.The Court also said the experts could also be tasked with periodically reviewing past decisions to identify patterns of irresponsible litigation to ensure that lessons are learned and applied in future cases..It also said suitable action should be taken against officials who are found to be negligent. Regarding the ongoing cases, the Court said they should be reviewed periodically to sift out meaningless litigation. Mandatory training sessions should be organised for officers involved in the process of initiating and managing litigation, especially on avoiding adjournments and delay, it was suggested..'Don’t Wait'.The Court said while the Union Minister of Law and Justice has indicated that guidelines and policies are under preparation, the government need not wait for formal documentation to instill an “ethos of accountability and reduce unnecessary litigation.”“Even the most meticulous policies will serve little purpose if they remain confined to paper. Effective governance doesn't always stem from formalized guidelines; often, it arises from a cultural shift within an institution,” said the Court.The measures suggested by the Court can serve as an interim framework and should be adopted as precursors to formulation of formal policy after due deliberation with experts/ stakeholders, said the bench..The court ordered that a copy of the judgement be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice of the Government of India for necessary action and to Secretary, Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs of the Government of NCT of Delhi for due consideration.Senior Advocate AS Chandhiok served as Amicus Curiae and appeared along with Advocates Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Alka Singh. Advocates Punam Kumari, Yogesh Swaroop, Kapil Kishor Kaushik and Md. Asif represented the private respondents. Advocate Kirtiman Singh with Advocates Waize Ali Noor and Madhav Bajaj represented the Central government. Central Government Standing Counsel Manish Mohan with Advocate Jatin Teotia also appeared for the Central government. Panel Counsel Durgam Nandrajog with advocate Jatin Dua represented the Delhi Government [Read Judgment]