<p>The Karnataka High Court has castigated the state government for causing a ‘docket explosion’ in the judiciary through unnecessary litigation and has warned that exemplary cost would be imposed on it if it continued to do so.</p>.<p>‘Docket explosion’ refers to the excess time beyond a reasonable period taken by the courts to dispose of cases, a situation caused by excessive litigation and related issues. While there are several reasons for it, including shortage of judges, the abuse of due process of law by unscrupulous litigants and fictitious PILs, the biggest ‘culprits’ are the central and state governments.</p>.<p>Former Chief Justice of India N V Ramana had noted that the government is the biggest litigant, accounting for about 50% of pending cases due to the non-performance of various wings of the executive and the legislature.</p>.<p>Often, even intra- and inter-departmental disputes of the government end up in court.</p>.<p>In the instant case, the state government had challenged in the High Court an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) with respect to an assistant sub-inspector, ignoring the legal opinion of the Law Department. Dismissing the petition as “meritless”, the court said that merely being the biggest litigant does not entitle the government to file “all and sundry cases which eat into judicial time”.</p>.<p>The judge also directed that in the event of such petitions, appeals or revisions not being entertained by the court, the cost of litigation should be recovered from the officers concerned. Hopefully these observations will have some impact on the state’s bureaucrats who have so far taken advantage of the court’s leniency to willfully disobey its orders.</p>.<p>Though the National Litigation Policy-2010 had attempted an action plan to reduce government litigation and was even subsequently revised to make it more effective, it continues to be followed more in the breach. There is also a need for the state government to effectively implement the Dispute Resolution Policy-2021 formulated by the Law Department and conduct region-wise workshops to educate officers on the policy to avoid filing of unnecessary petitions and appeals.</p>.<p>It is also necessary for both the Centre and the states to conduct a formal study on the issue to identify which level of the government apparatus contributes significantly to docket explosion so that an effective National Litigation Policy can be evolved and put into practice.</p>.<p>The focus should be on conflict resolution through forums like Lok Adalat and not through lengthy litigation. The government should refrain from overburdening the courts itself so that the judiciary can function efficiently to give timely justice to the millions of ordinary citizens who go to court seeking it.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court has castigated the state government for causing a ‘docket explosion’ in the judiciary through unnecessary litigation and has warned that exemplary cost would be imposed on it if it continued to do so.</p>.<p>‘Docket explosion’ refers to the excess time beyond a reasonable period taken by the courts to dispose of cases, a situation caused by excessive litigation and related issues. While there are several reasons for it, including shortage of judges, the abuse of due process of law by unscrupulous litigants and fictitious PILs, the biggest ‘culprits’ are the central and state governments.</p>.<p>Former Chief Justice of India N V Ramana had noted that the government is the biggest litigant, accounting for about 50% of pending cases due to the non-performance of various wings of the executive and the legislature.</p>.<p>Often, even intra- and inter-departmental disputes of the government end up in court.</p>.<p>In the instant case, the state government had challenged in the High Court an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) with respect to an assistant sub-inspector, ignoring the legal opinion of the Law Department. Dismissing the petition as “meritless”, the court said that merely being the biggest litigant does not entitle the government to file “all and sundry cases which eat into judicial time”.</p>.<p>The judge also directed that in the event of such petitions, appeals or revisions not being entertained by the court, the cost of litigation should be recovered from the officers concerned. Hopefully these observations will have some impact on the state’s bureaucrats who have so far taken advantage of the court’s leniency to willfully disobey its orders.</p>.<p>Though the National Litigation Policy-2010 had attempted an action plan to reduce government litigation and was even subsequently revised to make it more effective, it continues to be followed more in the breach. There is also a need for the state government to effectively implement the Dispute Resolution Policy-2021 formulated by the Law Department and conduct region-wise workshops to educate officers on the policy to avoid filing of unnecessary petitions and appeals.</p>.<p>It is also necessary for both the Centre and the states to conduct a formal study on the issue to identify which level of the government apparatus contributes significantly to docket explosion so that an effective National Litigation Policy can be evolved and put into practice.</p>.<p>The focus should be on conflict resolution through forums like Lok Adalat and not through lengthy litigation. The government should refrain from overburdening the courts itself so that the judiciary can function efficiently to give timely justice to the millions of ordinary citizens who go to court seeking it.</p>
