Supreme Court Slams Union of India for Frivolous Litigation and Imposes Costs
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Pirthwi Singh & Ors., strongly criticized the government for filing frivolous and repetitive appeals, adding unnecessary burden to the justice delivery system. The case revolved around an appeal that was filed despite the Supreme Court previously dismissing similar matters on the same legal issue.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta. The Court dismissed the appeal, imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the Union of India, and questioned the government’s approach to litigation. The ruling reinforced the need for a comprehensive and effective National Litigation Policy to prevent unnecessary appeals.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India concerning service-related issues. A previous Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn had already settled the legal question. Despite this, the Union of India continued filing similar appeals, including one titled Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. Nk. Balbir Singh, which was dismissed on March 9, 2018, with costs.
The present appeal was filed on March 8, 2018, after the dismissal of earlier cases, leading the Court to question the government’s strategy in persisting with unnecessary litigation.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the Union of India was justified in filing repetitive appeals on a matter that had already been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the government’s litigation policy needs urgent reform to prevent wastage of judicial resources.
- Whether costs should be imposed to discourage unnecessary appeals.
Arguments Presented
Union of India’s Arguments
The government, in defense of its appeal, argued:
- That the matter required further examination despite previous dismissals.
- That the appeal was necessary to maintain uniformity in legal decisions.
- That procedural issues necessitated reconsideration of the case.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents countered:
- The legal issue had already been settled in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, and there was no new ground to justify another appeal.
- Filing repetitive appeals wasted court time and resources.
- The government was disregarding its own National Litigation Policy, which aimed to reduce unnecessary litigation.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Union of India’s litigation strategy. The judgment contained severe criticism of the government’s approach:
“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.”
The Court emphasized that unnecessary appeals add to the already overburdened judiciary:
“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.”
Criticism of National Litigation Policy Implementation
The Court noted that the Union of India had introduced the National Litigation Policy in 2010, aiming to transform the government into an “efficient and responsible litigant.” However, the policy’s principles were being ignored.
“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.”
Key Excerpts from the Judgment
The Court further criticized the financial burden created by such appeals:
“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 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.”
The Court issued a strong reminder to the government:
“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?”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the Union of India. The amount was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for use in juvenile justice issues. The Court also scheduled the case for compliance monitoring after five weeks.
Implications of the Judgment
- This ruling serves as a warning to government departments to avoid unnecessary litigation.
- It emphasizes the need for a more responsible approach in government litigation.
- The ruling highlights the inefficiencies in the implementation of the National Litigation Policy.
- The judgment may lead to policy changes aimed at reducing frivolous government appeals.
- It underscores the responsibility of legal representatives to advise the government against pursuing meritless cases.
This landmark ruling sends a strong message to the government to reform its litigation practices and ensure that legal resources are used efficiently.
Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..Respondent Name: Pirthwi Singh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Deepak Gupta.Place Of Incident: India.Judgment Date: 24-04-2018.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Union of India & Ors vs Pirthwi Singh & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-04-2018.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments
See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
