Disputes involving govt: A case to cut litigation count

It was also decided at the meetings that as the private companies and service providers do not have effective public grievance redressal system, the Department of Consumer Affairs must take care of this aspect so that people do no rush directly to court. “Other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms should be explored before approaching courts and services of agencies providing pre-litigation mediation could be utilised,” according to one of the suggestions discussed at the meeting. In case ministries and departments face issues related to timely listing of cases or clubbing of cases, it was suggested that they could “always write to the secretary general of the Supreme Court or the registrar generals/registries of the high courts/district courts”.

The meetings took place last year on June 5, June 8, June 13 and August 22, under the chairpersonship of Snehlata Shrivastava, then secretary of the DoJ. She requested all participants to provide information on pendency of cases, including efforts taken by them to reduce pendency of contempt cases and cases that are older than 10 years, so that the information can then be shared with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Through the meetings, it came to light that many ministries and departments — notably the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE), the Department of Defence, the Department of Defence Finance, the Department of Revenue, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the Department of Post, among others — were involved in massive litigation as their cases run into thousands.

During the August 22 meeting, the MCA informed that they have taken preventive measures, and as far as curative measures are concerned, they are in the process of reviewing 50,000 cases. “They (MCA) have formed seven regional committees all over India which would be reviewing cases pending for less than 10 years; and 2 ministerial committees which would be reviewing 10 year old cases. The committees will also recommend how many cases could be withdrawn,” the minutes stated.

The MoLE stated at the same meeting that it is involved in 4,627 cases and in most of them, it is only a “proforma” party , and therefore they have a limited role in such matters. A proforma party is a party named in the case as a matter of formality, who typically has no direct responsibility for the harm alleged, but shares an interest with other defendants. At the meeting, the DoP stated that it has about 18,000 cases and “as of now, no measure is being taken at the department level as most of the matters are pending at division level”. However, it added that effort shall be made to follow up and monitor these cases.

After the push from the DoJ, the Department of Defence conducted an internal review and at the meeting, the latter told the former that the number of pending cases are about 39,000. “Over the previous few months, about 1,300 cases (of Department of Defence) have been reduced and about 270 cases have been withdrawn,” the minutes stated. At the meeting, the health ministry stated that they have more than 1,000 cases pending in different courts and they have written to all joint secretaries to create cells in each department to review pending cases.

The Department of Revenue informed that after taking several measures during the past few months, pendency has gone down but the number of pending cases is still quite high — 6,357 cases are pending in the Supreme Court, about 38,500 cases in high courts and 94,000 cases in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). “The Department of Revenue has come out with various instructions. One such instructions was regarding filing of cases where usually, the department used to take litigation action when the audit department raised objections. The new instructions state that no litigation will be initiated in such matters anymore,” the minutes stated.

In April last year, the pending cases of Department of Commerce were 873. The number of cases were reduced to 715 by August, 2017. “It is difficult for them (the commerce department) to withdraw cases involving financial implications relating to trade. They are, however, taking actions for reducing cases relating to service matters,” the minutes of the August 22 meeting stated.

The Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation stated at the June 13 meeting that it is involved in 814 court cases and the cases before the Supreme Court are of serious nature pertaining to water-sharing disputes between states. The ministry official, who attended the June 13 meeting, also said that the cases in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) have been increasing.

“There are 145 cases and the ministry has been implicated as party in every case,” stated the minutes. During the meetings that were held on June 5, June 8 and June 13, it was decided that a separate review meeting with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Personnel and Training should be held “as they have large number of pending cases that are also different in nature”.

At these three June meetings, various suggestions were made by the departments and the ministries to reduce government litigation. Some of them were: “Take review of policy matters leading to litigations; strengthen internal grievance mechanism to prevent litigation; ensure no adjournment in court cases; avoid unnecessary filing of appeals and withdraw vexatious litigations; encourage public sector units, banks and insurance companies for online mediation for e-commerce related transactions and other service related grievances to prevent court cases.” Attorney general K K Venugopal did not answer the queries sent by The Indian Express on the issue.

The subject of reducing government litigation has been given attention in earlier governments, too. In 2010, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government announced the National Litigation Policy (NLP), which stated: “The NLP is based on the recognition that government and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigants in courts and tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transform government into an efficient and responsible litigant.” The NLP 2010 went on to explain what it means by “efficient and responsible” litigant.

The NLP 2010 stated: “Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, ‘let the court decide’, must be eschewed and condemned.” However, the NLP 2010 did not give desired results.

According to a lawyer, who has worked at the office of Attorney General during 2015-16, the NLP 2010 has failed in its objective of reducing government litigation and it’s time to “discuss and introduce” a new NLP that has “specific measures and goals” to achieve the objective.