In more than one-third of the litigation in India’s courts, the government is a party. In criminal cases, it cannot be avoided. But it is a different matter with civil cases. According to one estimate, the government is involved in 10 million cases. No wonder, the Union law minister and Attorney General have described the government as a “compulsive” litigant.
Last week, some Supreme Court judges also echoed this sentiment, in stronger terms. They criticised the government for resorting to prolonged litigation on “trivial” issues, and pointed out that not only did this waste the judiciary’s time but also caused the public exchequer a “colossal” loss.
“How much public money is spent on litigation by the government and its agencies? It is a matter of grave concern,” a bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said. The government preferred to fight a case up to the Supreme Court in matters that could be resolved at the secretariat. The judges cited the example of noted surgeon P Venugopal, who was removed from the post of Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences some time back. “He had to spend his time in the corridors of courts instead of conducting operations and heart surgery; we are fed up with these matters,” the court said. The agony of casual workers, small traders and those who have to get compensation for land acquisition is worse.
While unveiling a tantalising vision statement last year, the law minister recognised the problem and promised to turn the government from a “compulsive to a responsible and reluctant litigant”. The government proposed to entrust the task of weeding out senseless litigation from the government’s docket to top law officers — the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. They now have a full-fledged office in central Delhi, assisted by 52 lawyers and 26 law researchers. Statistics on pending matters have been called from government departments including public sector undertakings.
Attorney General G E Vahanvati has also commented on the government’s unhealthy urge to litigate. “It cannot be denied that government has become a compulsive litigant. There are several reasons for this. The Law Commission identified various reasons why the government became an irresponsible litigant. It said that in most cases, government litigated because of the utter indifference on the part of civil servants,” he said at recent conference. “Sometimes, the government pursued litigation as a matter of prestige, with an attitude of vengeance. In several cases, the officials had an attitude of arrogance and a superiority complex in litigating. It is easy to file a case in court and leave it to the courts to decide. One obvious reason to do so is to avoid the necessity of taking decisions, some of which can be awkward.”
Meanwhile, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court last week scrapped a scheme under which state-run enterprises had to resolve their disputes through an internal mechanism. In its judgment in the case, Electronic Corporation of India vs Union of India, the bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia noted that the court had earlier asked the government not to bring disputes within the government, its departments and public sector undertakings. Following three judgments (“ONGC cases”) in 1995, 2004 and 2007, the government set up a committee to settle the disputes so that they did not rush to the court.
In the last week’s judgment, the court regretted that though the mechanism was set up with a laudatory object, it led to delays in filing appeals, causing a revenue loss. For example, in many cases, the industry department took one view about the dispute while the revenue department took an opposite stand.
Moreover, with the enactment of regulatory laws, there could be overlapping jurisdictions — the dispute between the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and insurance regulators, for instance. In cases involving high stakes, the committee cannot be expected to give timely clearance. Differences of opinion among departments will generate more litigation. “The mechanism has outlived its utility,” the court concluded.
The impact of the dissolution of the committee is yet to be seen. The mechanism in place for the past 15 years did reduce the number of appeals in the fratricidal battles in the courts at various levels. Now one can expect to see more government departments and public sector undertakings fighting with each other up to the Supreme Court, wasting public revenue. That is, unless the think tank set up under the leadership of the top law officers brings out some quick alternative mechanism to cure the lust for litigation.
