‘Who is the biggest litigant?’ Supreme Court pulls up Centre, imposes penalty

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the Union government for continuing its pattern of relentless litigation and consequentially, burdening the top court with avoidable appeals. A general view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. (Shrikant Singh)A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the Centre for challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment reinstating a CISF constable. Dismissing the special leave petition (SLP), it questioned why the Union had chosen to carry the matter to the apex court despite concurrent findings of the high court. “We fail to understand why the Union of India and others have approached this court by assailing the order of the division bench of the high court. We dismiss this SLP with cost of ₹25,000,” ordered the bench. During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna delivered a pointed rebuke, underscoring that the government, while often expressing concern over judicial pendency, is itself the largest contributor to the backlog. “This is a case for imposing costs with dismissal. We have been shouting. Keep aside your argument. Pendency, pendency; who is the biggest litigant?” she remarked, echoing concerns the judge had raised days earlier at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s national conference. At that conference, Justice Nagarathna had described the government as playing a “dual role”- as both the provider of judicial infrastructure and the “largest generator of litigation.” She had warned that the state’s tendency to pursue appeals as a matter of routine, rather than restraint, was a key structural driver of judicial congestion. That critique found direct resonance in the courtroom on Tuesday. The bench stressed the urgent need for an internal filtration mechanism within the government’s litigation machinery, particularly at the stage of seeking legal opinion. “Why can’t the law officer be of the opinion that for absence of 11 days, dismissal is disproportionate, the high court has granted relief, and that we shall not go to the Supreme Court? Instead of giving such an opinion, you proceed against him?” asked Justice Nagarathna. The judge’s remarks reflected an institutional concern she had articulated earlier that government officers are often incentivised to file appeals out of caution. While settling disputes may invite audit or vigilance scrutiny, pursuing litigation is seen as a safer bureaucratic choice, leading to a cycle where “appeals become routine rather than rare.” It concerned a CISF constable who was dismissed from service after about ten years on two charges: unauthorised absence from duty for 11 days, and alleged misconduct relating to facilitating the elopement of a fellow constable’s daughter, who later married his younger brother. The constable’s absence occurred during a period of sanctioned medical leave, though he was not found present during an inspection. On the second charge, the woman in question appeared during disciplinary proceedings and stated she had no grievance. It was also undisputed that she had voluntarily married the constable’s brother. A single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the dismissal, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service. The division bench upheld this decision, finding no illegality or perversity and concluding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and that no misconduct warranting removal was established. Despite these concurrent findings, the Union approached the Supreme Court. The bench, referring to the factual context, also noted the personal circumstances faced by the constable. “Do you know the tension of a family if there is an elopement? He had to set right his family, get them married, and he returned after that,” she observed. The counsel for the Union attempted to limit the relief by arguing against the grant of back wages, invoking the principle of “no work, no pay” and pointing out that the matter had remained pending before the high court for six years. However, the court was not persuaded. It declined to interfere with the high court’s order on back wages. As the Union continued to press the issue, the bench proceeded to dismiss the petition with costs. Justice Nagarathna also made a pointed reference to the recent SCBA conference, signalling that the judiciary’s concerns about unnecessary government litigation are part of a broader institutional introspection. “We have taken the conference very seriously. It was not just to go to some resort and come back. Many judges travelled, we made preparation, we had done homework,” she said. As she had put it at the conference, the government “publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation,” creating a paradox where the state becomes “both the complainant and the cause.”