MoD data on pending litigation raises doubts on correct numbers

The data also reveals that as on July 2015, the number of contempt and execution applications in the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal alone were 4,390. A perusal of the 74th Report of the Parliamentary Committee dealing with various tribunals in India also shows that the number of cases pending at the beginning of 2015 in the Armed Forces Tribunal alone was 15,603. These numbers only pertain to military cases and litigation relating to civilian employees is over and above these figures.

In fact, while the law ministry shows the MoD to be the fifth highest litigant, experts point out that with correct numbers it is actually the second highest litigant while practically speaking it might be the largest litigant. “The railways and the finance Ministries have a high number of pending cases only due to the sheer number of railway accident claims and tax-related litigation, the volume of which is not under the control of ministries,” said an expert who did not want to be named.

The MoD’s high-level committee on litigation had made scathing remarks on its attitude calling it a “compulsive litigant” rather than a “responsible litigant”. It pointed out that most litigation was “ego-fuelled”, further observing that the “cost incurred in litigation, by litigants and the exchequer, and the wastage of man-hours and other intangible aspects such as movement of files and personnel, surpasses the amount involved in redressing the issue itself.”

The Committee had also recorded that efforts of the Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Attorney General and even the Defence Secretary had failed to control the litigious nature of MoD and only a “top down” approach after consulting stakeholders without relying upon file-notings of lower functionaries could address the malaise. Stating that “the duty of the Government was not to win cases by hook or crook or to trample down weaker parties or to score advantage over litigants”, the panel had advocated the imposition of costs on officials who indulge in unnecessary litigation rather than the exchequer.