UNION OF INDIA Vs. KIRAN KANOJIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These batch of appeals, stem from orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal as also the Trial Court qua a property dispute involving the Cement Corporation of India Limited, a public service undertaking. While deciding the matters on merits, this Court was deeply anguished by the approach adopted by the Indian Railways and Cement Corporation in their defence. Specifically, the fact that they resorted to unfounded arguments and false assertions raised serious concern, sufficient to agitate judicial conscience. This led to a judgment on 24/6/2021, by the learned Single Judge, which raises a cautionary flag on the disconcerting practice of frivolous claims or defences being advanced by the Government in legal proceedings - a trend that has the potential to adversely impact the very foundation of our legal system. In light of these concerns, the learned Single Judge reclassified these petitions as public interest litigation (PILs) and referred them to this bench for a focused examination of issues concerning Government's accountability and the lack of a 'National Litigation Policy'.

(2.) In the aforementioned judgment, the Court meticulously recorded the comprehensive submissions made by Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae, thereby obviating the need for repetition. Nonetheless, it is worth noting, that Mr. Chandhiok has adeptly encapsulated the scope of the issue, highlighting Government's seemingly indifferent attitude leading to unchecked proliferation of frivolous litigation.

(3.) The overwhelming majority of cases currently clogging the judicial system involve either the Central Government, State Governments, or public sector undertakings (PSUs). In a pivotal move to tackle this pressing issue, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, convened a national consultation on 24th and 25/10/2009, specifically aimed at mitigating judicial delay and reducing backlogs of cases. This led to the formulation of the "National Litigation Policy, 2010" (hereinafter referred to as the "2010 Policy"). Regrettably, this well-conceived policy is yet to witness its implementation. The absence of a litigation strategy has also been in focus in the judgments of the Supreme Court. These judgments have consistently emphasized on the crucial importance of a 'National Litigation Policy' and articulated concern over the inefficiency and wastage of resources attributable to the Government's current approach. For instance, in Union of India v. Prithwi Singh, (2018) 16 SCC 363 the Supreme Court remarked on the Union of India's apparent disregard for the 2010 Policy and, in effect, the justice delivery system. The Court observed that the 2010 Policy was under review and there were plans for introducing "National Litigation Policy, 2015". However, definitive timelines regarding its finalization and subsequent implementation were conspicuously absent. Simultaneously, the Court held that the Union of India overlooked crucial steps in the "Action Plan to Reduce Government Litigation" ("Action Plan") formulated on 13/6/2017. This plan emphasizes that appeals should only be filed in cases which touch upon significant policy matters and vexatious litigation should be promptly withdrawn. Further, in a prior judgment in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512 the Supreme Court highlighted the pivotal role of legal officers in government entities in perpetuating unnecessary litigation. It underscored the imperative for State Governments and statutory authorities to act decisively in eradicating vexatious litigation, in line with the Central Government's policy on the matter.