1. Appeal filed by the Union of India on a subject already concluded by the Supreme Court in similar previous matters. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 413
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pirthwi Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4415 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 8754 of 2018) With (IA No. 52059 of 2018, IA No. 52058 of 2018, IA. No.52056 of 2018 and IA No. 52057 of 2018)
Decided On : 24-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Union of India should desist from filing frivolous appeals.
Union of India should desist from filing frivolous appeals.
Subject
Legal Procedure - Judicial Review
Headnote
Administration of justice – Frivolous litigation – Batch of appeals in similar matter dismissed vide 2017 (14) SCALE 189 – Still another similar appeal was filed in Ex Naik Balbir Singh which was dismissed with cost of 1,00,000 to deter filing of frivolous appeals unnecessarily burdening the justice delivery system – Yet the present appeal on similar matter has been filed – Engaging as many as 13 advocates even though knowing the fate of the same – Dismissed with cost of 1,00,000 as before – Hoped that union of India shall be more responsible and finalise formulation of fresh National Litigation policy. (Para 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
Batch of appeals in similar matter dismissed vide 2017 (14) SCALE 189. Still another similar appeal was filed in Ex Naik Balbir Singh which was dismissed with cost of 1,00,000 to deter filing of frivolous appeals unnecessarily burdening the justice delivery system. Yet the present appeal on similar matter has been filed.
Finding of the Court:
Union of India should desist from filing frivolous appeals.
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Sweta, Ms. Romila, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs.
For the Appellants : Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Sweta, Ms. Romila, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. The Union of India pursued an appeal despite the subject matter being concluded by the Court in similar previous cases. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. The government's disregard for its own National Litigation Policy and Action Plan burdens the judiciary and harms other litigants through the pursuit of frivolous cases. (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 )
4. Government agencies must act as efficient and responsible litigants by avoiding unnecessary appeals and withdrawing vexatious litigation to reduce judicial pendency. (Para 9 , 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs imposed on the Union of India. (Para 18 )
6. What are the characteristics of an efficient and responsible government litigant?
An efficient litigant focuses on core issues, manages litigation cohesively, and avoids needlessly persevering with bad cases. A responsible litigant avoids litigating for the sake of litigating, eschews false pleas or technical points, and ensures all relevant facts and documents are presented without misleading the court. (Para 9 )
7. How does the filing of frivolous or infructuous appeals by the government affect the justice delivery system?
Such litigation unnecessarily adds to the burden of the courts, which collaterally harms other litigants by delaying the hearing of their cases due to the sheer volume of unnecessary filings. (Para 8 , 17 )
8. What steps are recommended in the government's Action Plan to reduce pendency of litigation?
The Action Plan suggests avoiding the routine filing of appeals—limiting them to cases involving substantial policy matters—and the immediate withdrawal of vexatious litigation. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
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.
4. The Union of India had filed a batch of appeals which was dismissed by this Court by a judgment and order dated 8th December, 2017. The decision is reported as Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, 2017 (14) SCALE 189.
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. 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.
"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
