Punjab and High Court slams frivolous petitions, says they divert precious judicial resources

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed anguish over the rising trend of frivolous litigation clogging judicial processes, emphasising that such cases divert precious time and resources from meritorious matters. Dismissing a petition filed by a woman alleging threats and harassment by husband and other relatives, Justice Nidhi Gupta also imposed Rs 20,000 costs on the petitioner.

Observing that the case was devoid of substantive merit, Justice Gupta asserted: “This court is pained to observe that an increasing trend is seen wherein frivolous and puerile proceedings are repeatedly initiated, adding to the already substantial workload of the courts.”

Elaborating, Justice Gupta asserted the court was daily inundated with frivolous petitions, where the entire state machinery was put into action on the whims and fancies of the indiscriminating litigants. “It is an unfortunate consequence that in the cacophony of such matters, more meritorious and deserving cases can sometimes not get the time and attention that they deserve as the very valuable public time of the court is expended on matters such as the present one. Such a trend deserves to be discouraged,” the court added.

Justice Gupta observed that the woman, among other things, had alleged in her petition that her husband, addicted to drugs, inflicted physical harm and forced her into sexual relations. But the court noted neither the petition, nor the supporting representation, specified any concrete incidents or evidence. General allegations were made without substantiation.

“Neither the petition, nor the representation, remotely indicates as to in what manner, or on what date, or in which place, have the respondents threatened, assaulted, or harassed the petitioner that would call for her to seek protection of her life and liberty, or would constitute threat to her life. Only general allegations have been made against the respondent-husband,” Justice Gupta asserted.

Referring to a status report filed by the state, Justice Gupta observed it indicated that the petitioner had run away from her matrimonial home with a person, rendering the claims of threats and harassment baseless. Additionally, the petitioner could not be contacted at the provided address or phone number. No medical evidence was submitted to support claims of physical abuse.

Describing the case as “blatant misuse of the due process of law”, Justice Gupta directed that the costs to be deposited within two weeks, and failure to comply would invite recovery proceedings. The judgment is significant as it indicates that judicial resources are finite, and indiscriminate litigation undermines the system’s ability to prioritise genuine grievances. It reinforces the principle that legal remedies are required to be pursued responsibly with substantive evidence, rather than vague or false allegations.