REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 57 OF 2014
Subrata Roy Sahara .... Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others .... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J
“……………19. (In) K. A. Ansari vs Indian Airlines
(2009) 2 SCC 164 (this Court) observed thus, “The Respondent Indian Airlines was
obliged to obey and implement the…..direction. If they had any doubt or if the
order was not clear, it was always open to them to approach the court for
clarification…….Difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the Court,
howsoever grave its effect may be, is no answer for its non-compliance………
150. The
Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways
and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive
obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in
mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the
other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn
anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is
pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of
his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick
him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing
counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should
have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a
litigant not be compensated for, what he has lost, for no fault? The suggestion
to the legislature is, that a litigant who has succeeded, must be compensated
by the one, who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a
mechanism, that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly,
pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the
introduction of a “Code of Compulsory Costs.”
151. We should not be taken to have
suggested, that the cost of litigation should be enhanced. It is not our
suggestion, that Court fee or other litigation related costs, should be raised.
Access to justice and related costs, should be as free and as low, as possible.
What is sought to be redressed is a habituation, to press illegitimate claims.
This practice and pattern is so rampant, that in most cases, disputes which
ought to have been settled in no time at all, before the first Court of
incidence, are prolonged endlessly, for years and years, and from Court to
Court, upto the highest Court.
152. This abuse of the judicial process is
not limited to any particular class of litigants. The State and its agencies
litigate endlessly upto the highest Court, just because of the lack of responsibility,
to take decisions. So much so, that we have started to entertain the
impression, that all administrative and executive decision making, are being
left to Courts, just for that reason. In private litigation as well, the
concerned litigant would continue to approach the higher Court,
despite the fact that he had lost in every Court hitherto before. The effort is
not to discourage a litigant, in whose perception, his cause is fair and
legitimate. The effort is only to introduce consequences, if the litigant’s
perception was incorrect, and if his cause is found to be, not fair and
legitimate, he must pay for the same. In the present setting of the
adjudicatory process, a litigant, no matter how irresponsible he is, suffers no
consequences. Every litigant, therefore, likes to take a chance, even when
counsel’s advice is otherwise.
153. Does the concerned litigant realize,
that the litigant on the other side has
had to defend himself, from Court to Court, and has had to incur expenses
towards such defence? And there are some litigants who continue to pursue
senseless and ill-considered claims, to somehow or the other, defeat the
process of law. The present case, is a classic illustration of what we wish to
express. Herein the regulating authority has had to suffer litigation from
Court to Court, incurring public expense in its defence, against frivolous
litigation. Every order was consistently and systematically disobeyed. Every
order passed by the SEBI was assailed before the next higher authority, and
then before this Court. Even though High Courts have no jurisdiction, in
respect of issues regulated by the SEBI Act, some matters were taken to the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (before its Lucknow Bench). Every such
endeavour resulted in failure, and was also sometimes, accompanied with strictures.
Even after the matter had concluded, after the controversy had attained
finality, the judicial process is still being abused, for close to two years. A
conscious effort on the part of the legislature in this behalf, would serve
several purposes. It would, besides everything else, reduce frivolous
litigation. When the litigating party understands, that it would have to
compensate the party which succeeds, unnecessary litigation will be
substantially reduced. At the end of the day, Court time lost is a direct loss
to the nation. It is about time, that the legislature should evolve ways and
means to curtail this unmindful activity. We are sure, that an eventual
determination, one way or the other, would be in the best interest of this
country, as also, its countrymen.
..................................J.
(K.S.
Radhakrishnan)
..................................J.
(Jagdish
Singh Khehar)
New Delhi;
May 6, 2014.
From the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
No comments:
Post a Comment