HC censures administrative apathy; says governance must transcend rule-bound rigidity, adopt humane, compassionate approach

Noting with concern the administrative indifference to human distress, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that government functionaries time and again show “persistent and unwarranted apathy and insensitivity” while dealing with employees, pensioners and the marginalised in need of urgent relief. The Bench also made it clear that practical implementation of litigation policies framed by the two States would have resulted in expeditious disposal of issues already settled.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted that the constitutional philosophy prioritised human dignity above all else and the State, as well as its instrumentalities, were “expected to conduct themselves in a manner that aligns with the same.”

“In that vein, the administrative machinery must function as the custodian of public welfare, guided by the basic constitutional promise of dignity, fairness, and responsive governance. However, this court is constrained to note that administrative authorities often display persistent and unwarranted apathy and insensitivity, highlighted by the lack of compassion, when dealing with the employees, pensioners and the marginalised, who require time-sensitive relief,” Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench deplored that the officials routinely and mechanically disposed of representations, delayed decisions, ignored judicial orders, or raised pedantic objections and in the process failed to recognise the urgent human needs of citizens.

“This indifference manifests itself as disregard for human exigencies and adopting a hyper-technical approach to deny substantive justice. Such lack of compassion calls into question the integrity of the constitutional guarantee of justice, which widens the gap between the government and the citizenry,” the Bench asserted, while dealing with a compassionate appointment cases.

Reiterating that the State could not treat its constitutional obligations as discretionary charity, the Bench observed: “Time and again, Courts have censured such conduct and have reiterated that the State is not permitted to act with cold indifference and formalistic detachment, considering its duty to be in the nature of charity.”

Justice Brar asserted that such indifference and arbitrary handling of representations ultimately fed avoidable litigation. “Unnecessary delay and arbitrary approach in deciding representations and claims, ultimately result in avoidable litigation burdening the Courts that are already struggling with considerable pendency.”

The Bench also recorded its concern that it daily encountered matters that should not have reached the courtroom at all. “Every day this Court deals with matters pertaining to issues that already stand settled and which could be decided expeditiously, in terms of the respective litigation policies framed by the States of Punjab and Haryana, had they been practically implemented.”

In a clear message to the administration, Justice Brar stressed the need for a transformation in governance ethos. Ultimately, the ethos of administration must shift. “Governance must transcend rule bound rigidity and endorse a humane, compassionate, and accountable approach, consistent with constitutional values and public trust”.