Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. Midha, J.
Hajara - Appellant
Versus
Government of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7553 of 2015, FAO 265 of 2014 & CM Appls. 39547 of 2019, 18352 of 2021, FAO 403 of 2017, FAO 22 of 2015 and RFA 457 of 2017
Decided On : 24-06-2021
False Claims - Government Litigation - Railways Act, Indian Penal Code, Conduct of the Government Litigation Rules, 2000, State of Haryana Litigation Policy-2010 - The court discussed the accountability of government officers for raising false claims before the court and highlighted the need for a litigation policy to reduce government litigation in courts. The court emphasized the importance of responsible and efficient litigation by the government and the need for a compulsory mediation process.
Fact of the Case:
The cases involved instances where the Government raised false claims/defenses before the Court, leading to immense injustice to the litigants seeking justice. The Court found that the false claims caused unnecessary burden on the Court and the Government, and there was a lack of accountability for the officers raising false claims. The Court noted the relevant facts of specific cases involving a goods train accident, a compensation claim for a railway accident, and a property lease dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Government's false claims shocked the conscience of the Court and emphasized the need for accountability of government officers in court cases. The Court also highlighted the lack of a litigation policy for the Railways in respect of Railway claims cases and the need for a fair policy with provisions for accountability. The Court noted that the Government is the single largest litigant in the country and urged for responsible litigation by the Government and public sector undertakings.
Issues: The issues included the lack of accountability for government officers raising false claims, the absence of a litigation policy for the Railways in respect of Railway claims cases, and the need for a uniform litigation policy for the Government, State, Central, and Public Sector Undertakings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for a National Litigation Policy to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant, focusing on core issues involved in the litigation and managing and conducting litigation only when absolutely necessary. The Court highlighted the importance of responsible litigation, reducing the number of cases, and bringing down the average pendency of cases from 15 years to 3 years.
Final Decision: The Court directed the matter to be listed before the PIL Bench and appreciated the valuable assistance and comprehensive research done by the amicus curiae and the Law Researcher attached to the Court.
1. In all these cases, the Government raised false claims/defenses before this Court which is a matter of grave concern. All these cases shocked the conscience of this Court. It appears that the false claims are raised with impunity because there is no accountability of any Government officer for raising the false claims and Courts seldom take any action against the person concerned for raising false claims/defences.
2. This Court is of the prima facie view that whenever a false claim is raised by the Government, it causes immense injustice to the litigant seeking justice; it also puts unnecessary burden on the Court and the Government also suffers but the concerned officer who has raised the false claim, does not suffer any action. If the facts given by the officers are found to be false/incorrect by the Court, the Government shall consider taking action and the copy of the judgment be kept in the ACR file of the officer. This will ensure that the officer is held accountable for the actions taken by him in the Court case. State of Sikkim has already framed the Rules for holding its officers accountable for the lapses in the handling of the Court cases, which are reproduced in para 3 below. There is a need to incorporate similar Rules by the Central Government as well as by the GNCTD.
3. The State of Sikkim has enacted Conduct of the Government Litigation Rules, 2000. Chapter-IV titled `Civil Suit and Other Civil Proceedings' contains Rule 5 which deals with accountability of the officer handling the case, whereas Rule 18 deals with Fixation of Accountability
"Rule 5-Accountability
If any case is decided against the State Government and the failure of the case is due to inept and negligent handling of the case, the officer of the department who is engaged in handling the litigation on behalf of the department shall be held accountable.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18-Fixation of Accountability
If any lapses occur on the part of any agency of the prosecution, resulting in failure of cases, appropriate severe action shall be taken against him or her for such lapses"
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The State of Haryana has framed State of Haryana Litigation Policy-2010 to bring visible, enduring qualitative and quantitative improvement in the manner in which litigation is perceived, managed and conducted in the State. The national concern of pendency and delays in Courts needs to be reduced proactively. It states that the objective is to transform Government into an efficient and responsible litigant so that it manages and conducts litigation in coordinated and time bound manner; ensure that good cases are won and bad cases not pursued needlessly and to reduces overall government litigation load in Courts thereby providing relief to the judiciary. It further states that the objective is to provide for a substantive mechanism which would inter-alia serve to monitor and control the implementation of the Policy, enforce accountability on and provide clarifications, to the implementers and stakeholders of the policy and to consider changes in the policy, depending on its performance and effectiveness.
5. As per Legal Information Management & Briefing System (LIMBS) which is a web-based portal developed by Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice for monitoring and handling of various Court cases of Government Departments and Ministries 4,79,236 cases of Government, 2055 cases for compliance and 975 cases of contempt were pending as on June 08, 2021. Finance Ministry has highest number of 1,17,808 cases, whereas Railways has 2nd highest pendency with 99,030 cases.
6. Before discussing further, it would be appropriate to record the relevant facts of these cases.
Hajara v. Government of India, W.P.(C) 7533/2015
7. On 26th November, 2013 at about 12.18 A.M. a goods train broke at the dead end of the railway track of Old Delhi Railway Station and hit the boundary wall of the railway station whereupon the boundary wall collapsed
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a National Litigation Policy to ensure responsible and efficient litigation by the Government and public sector undertakings, with a f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the pressing need for a comprehensive 'National Litigation Policy' to address the unchecked proliferation of frivolous litigation involving the Gov....
Point of law: While construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words....
Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires sufficient cause, particularly in State cases where habitual laxity is inexcusable; costs may be imposed to deter frivolous appeals....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, and the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
