REPORTABLE

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.  

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 1 of 7

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

dismissed 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

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

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 2 of 7

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.

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 3 of 7

“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].

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 4 of 7

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

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 5 of 7

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

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 6 of 7

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

               C.A. No. ______of  2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018)                                  Page 7 of 7