We need to reduce government litigation to ease judicial delays
Relevance: GS Paper II
Why in News?
Much of the litigation in India involves the government as bureaucratic hesitation to take decisive action leads to court cases, many of them frivolous. India needs a comprehensive database for better estimation of government cases and an enforceable litigation policy.
Inefficiencies in Judicial Processes and Their Impact:
- The inefficiency of judicial processes in India, famously captured by the movie dialogue “Tareekh pe Tareekh,” has long been a concern.
- Prolonged legal proceedings create uncertainties, foster corruption, and escalate litigation costs.
- These issues significantly deter investment and stifle business operations.
- Research by Matthieu Chemin suggests that judicial reforms could enhance firm productivity by as much as 22%.
The Role of Government in Litigation:
- The government is a major contributor to the problem of judicial inefficiency, being the largest litigator in the country.
- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in the case of Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs Union of India (1973), highlighted the government's problematic litigation practices, noting the significant financial burden on the public exchequer. This situation persists even today.
- The Tenth Law Commission’s 100th report also observed that a substantial portion of litigation in courts, including writ petitions in the Supreme Court and High Courts, involves the government.
- More recently, the Delhi High Court has emphasized the need to curb unnecessary and frivolous litigations involving government departments.
- Supreme Court’s Justice B.R. Gavai also noted that “70% of government litigation is frivolous”.
- A 2019 report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, citing a Ministry of Law document, revealed that 46% of all litigation in India involves the government.
The Scope and Impact of Government Litigation:
- This excessive litigation involving the government clogs the judiciary, delays dispute resolution, and diverts resources away from necessary legal battles.
- The broad definition of the “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution complicates the assessment of government litigation.
- This definition includes not just the central and state governments but also public sector undertakings (PSUs), nationalized banks, and cooperative societies, making the scope of government litigation vast and challenging to manage.
Efforts to Manage Government Litigation:
- In response to the rising tide of litigation, the Union government established the Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS) in 2016, with an updated version launched in 2019.
- LIMBS aims to serve as a unified platform for monitoring legal cases involving the Government of India across all ministries and departments.
- However, data from LIMBS shows that ministries like finance, railways, defense, and labor are still burdened with a significant number of pending cases, highlighting the need for more comprehensive measures.
The Need for a National-Level Litigation Portal:
- There is an urgent need for a national-level portal to track litigation across all entities defined as the “State.”
- Without comprehensive data, any intervention to reduce government litigation will remain inadequate.
- Such a portal would enable better management of cases, reduce unnecessary litigation, and improve the overall efficiency of the judicial process.
Government Initiatives to Reduce Litigation:
- In recent years, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) have issued directives to withdraw low-impact appeals and focus on significant cases.
- The Union Budget 2024-25 increased the threshold monetary limits for appeals to ₹60 lakhs for tax tribunals, ₹2 crores for high courts, and ₹5 crores for the Supreme Court.
- Despite these measures, the high volume of government litigation continues, pointing to a persistent bureaucratic hesitation to take decisive action.
The Problem of Bureaucratic Risk Aversion:
- Bureaucratic risk aversion is a significant factor contributing to excessive government litigation.
- Robert Merton, in his book “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality”, describes the inherent risk aversion within bureaucratic systems, where a strict adherence to established protocols often leads to what he terms “trained incapacity.”
- This risk aversion results in a reluctance to make decisions, leading to an over-reliance on litigation as a means to avoid accountability.
The Need for a Coherent Litigation Policy:
- To address this issue, the Union and state governments need to introduce enforceable litigation policies that promote decision-making over litigation.
- The 11th Law Commission’s 126th report (1988) cited the lack of a coherent policy, and despite the recommendation for a National Litigation Policy, it took 22 years to introduce the NLP 2010.
- However, due to a lack of concrete thresholds and effective enforcement, NLP 2010 was never fully implemented.
- The 13th Finance Commission proposed grants for states to improve justice delivery, conditional on adopting state litigation policies based on national policy. While states introduced these policies to avail grants, implementation was weak.
- The Union government has also yet to come up with an NLP. The Department of Legal Affairs suggested NLP 2015, but no substantial progress followed.
Way Forward:
- The law minister’s recent announcement of National Litigation Policy (NLP) 2024 is a commendable step, but its success will depend on overcoming past shortcomings.
- NLP 2024 must include robust implementation mechanisms, measurable targets, penalties for non-compliance, legal support for decision-makers, and strict limits on government appeals.
- Only with these measures in place can the government reduce its litigation burden and contribute to a more efficient judicial process.
Conclusion:
Reducing excessive government litigation in India is essential for improving judicial efficiency, creating a favorable business environment, and ensuring the effective use of public resources. While initiatives such as LIMBS and NLP 2024 are encouraging, fundamental reforms and rigorous execution are required to address the underlying causes of government litigation and unclog the judiciary. Only through the implementation of comprehensive measures and committed to policy enforcement can the government reduce its litigation burden and improve the overall efficacy of the justice system.
