HC raps state for mechanical litigation, imposes costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the State of Punjab for pursuing litigation in a “mechanical and indifferent fashion”, while making it clear that such conduct undermines responsible governance and clogs the judiciary with frivolous disputes.

The admonition came as a Division Bench quashed the arbitrary cancellation of an MBBS admission granted to a student under the freedom fighter quota before imposing Rs 1 lakh costs on the college concerned and another respondent. The state was also directed to pay Rs 50,000 costs to the petitioner within two weeks.

Terming the state’s actions as a “serious menace to the administration of justice”, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that frivolous cases filed by it drained public resources and overburdened an already stretched judiciary.

Stressing on the need to penalise such behaviour, the Bench said: “This tendency can be curbed only if the courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalises such comportment. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out such an unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this court deems it appropriate to saddle the authorities concerned with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable and real time in nature.”

Appearing before the Bench, senior counsel DS Patwalia with advocate AS Chadha had earlier told the Bench that the petitioner’s grandfather was a verified freedom fighter, and the admission was granted after due verification. But the admission was arbitrarily annulled based on a 1995 letter that imposed conditions not outlined in the prospectus.

The communication stipulated that the benefit under the freedom fighter quota would apply to adopted children only if the freedom fighter had no biological children. The state’s stand in the matter was that the petitioner’s grandfather had five biological daughters. The adoption of the petitioner’s father did not qualify for the reservation benefit.

The Bench asserted a clause in the prospectus on reservation for children/grandchildren of freedom fighters was drafted in clear and unequivocal terms. “The language was unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretative deviation, ensuring that the benefit of reservation is equally extended to all eligible children/grandchildren of freedom fighters, irrespective of their biological status,” the court observed.

Before parting with the order, the Bench asserted the state was required to adopt a balanced and judicious approach, exercise due diligence in distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim and resist the temptation to oppose claims indiscriminately.

“The constitutional framework envisions the state as a welfare state, which is inherently obligated to act in the best interest of its citizens. In litigation involving the state and its citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos must guide the state’s conduct. Unlike a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable judgment, the state bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity,” the Bench observed.

Describing the state as the largest litigant, the Bench added the huge expenditure involved made a big draft on the public exchequer. “The proceedings reveal lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance and judicial propriety. Such conduct reflects absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system,” Justice Goel asserted.