HC: Litigant should not suffer for court’s lapses

Making it clear that litigants should not suffer merely because judicial proceedings are delayed for reasons beyond their control, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the judiciary must adopt a corrective, rather than punitive, stance in matters where such delay is occasioned not by a party’s negligence but by institutional constraints.

Invoking the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” indicating that no one should be prejudiced by an act of the court, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel held that justice must not only be done, but manifestly seen to be done, particularly when court-ordered interim relief has been enjoyed by a litigant for an extended period due to systemic delay in the final adjudication.

The Bench asserted that the court had a solemn duty to ensure that interim protections did not become illusory following judicial delay. The judgment came in connection with an appeal filed by a student whose admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course had been annulled through a communication issued on February 2, 2017, on the ground that she did not meet the eligibility criteria of securing 50 per cent marks in physics, chemistry and biology.

Her counsel BS Patwalia and Abhishek Masih told the Bench that the student, who had scored 49.66 per cent, had been allowed to continue studies under interim orders passed on March 1, 2017, December 5, 2023, and April 1, 2025, during which time, she completed the course and was awarded the degree.

Holding that she could not be penalised at this belated stage for an issue still pending judicial resolution, the court declared that the passage of time due to the court’s own process in such situations must not be used to strip the litigant of rights accrued under interim orders.

The Bench said it would be “manifestly unjust as also inequitable to annul or invalidate such an admission at this belated stage,” particularly since no fraudulent practice was attributed to the appellant and no other candidate was displaced in the process.