Striking a blow at the rich and powerful for wasting time and abusing the judicial process by filing multiple litigations, the Supreme Court has slapped a fine of R25 lakh each on Messer Griesheim GmbH, a German company, and Goyal Gases Ltd and Ruias, for filing an ‘avoidable’ litigation. Infuriated on a litigation over acquisition and transfer of shares spanning 18 years, it termed this as a classic case of “unscrupulous litigants with money power.”
Directing the money to be utilised by the National Legal Services Authority to fund poor litigants, the apex court said the petitions were filed by “resorting to halftruths, misleading representations and suppression of facts. Each and every party is guilty of one or the other of the misconducts … the conduct of none of the parties to this litigation is wholesome … this case should also serve as proof of the abuse of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 (of the Constitution) by the rich and powerful in the name of a ‘fight for justice’ at each and every interlocutory step of a suit.”
This is not the first time such a fine has been imposed; there have been instances where courts have resorted to stringent measures against litigants who preferred vexatious PILs/petitions either to settle personal scores or for cheap publicity, wasting precious time of courts which are already bogged down by a huge pendency of over 3 crore cases.
Now, such ill-conceived petitions can turn counterproductive and land petitioners in trouble. The Madras High Court imposed a fine of R25,000 each on two successors-in-interest of land grabbers who dragged the railways to the court by wrongly claiming ownership over the property. In another case, it pulled up Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, and imposed a fine of R1 lakh on it for seeking a direction to the National Board of Examinations to grant permission to its Thailand campus students to appear for a screening test.
The Gujarat High Court had imposed a penalty of R10,000 twice on a retired Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers officer for frivolous litigation and wasting the court’s time with his so-called knowledge, particularly of the English language. He invited the HC’s wrath with his tactic to prolong the case by making unnecessary lengthy arguments and filing unnecessary affidavits.
In yet another case, the Delhi High Court rapped a woman judicial magistrate in Dharmapuri and ordered her to pay R1 lakh towards compensation for violating the fundamental rights of a victim of sexual harassment.
Such orders indicate that the judiciary is willing to use the tools available with it to penalise litigants for wasting its valuable time and resources.
Worried over the rising trend of frivolous litigation, the Supreme Court had suggested the legislature to formulate a ‘Code for Compulsory Costs’. It had mooted the idea that in vexatious suits, “a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost.”
In 2005, the Law Commission had proposed a Bill against ‘vexatious litigations’ in courts, its argument being that a court’s time should not be taken up by those who persistently litigate without a justifiable cause.
As of now, the states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Goa, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh have passed legislations to stop citizens from filing cases “without reasonable ground.”
Under the Madhya Pradesh Tang Karnewali Mukadmebazi (Nivaran) Vidheyak, or the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015, the state’s advocate general has the power to submit to the HC an application against any person he thinks has been habitually filing civil or criminal cases without any reasonable ground. If the court finds merit, it can declare the person to be a ‘vexatious litigant’, who will not be then allowed to file any case in the HC or the lower courts without prior permission.
The Madras HC has set certain norms to be followed while filing a PIL to discourage its misuse. If the PIL is found to be frivolous and vexatious, it imposes fines starting from R10,000. The litigants have to give an undertaking that they will pay the cost if the PIL is found to be frivolous.
Besides, there are enough institutional tools to address the problem. The Constitution allows the SC to issue ‘any order’ necessary for ‘doing complete justice’ to the matter, including on costs. Although the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) vests high courts with the power to impose ‘compensatory’ costs for frivolous civil suits, the amount they can impose is unreasonably capped at R3,000.
The CPC allows lower courts to reject a civil plea that may be “unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,” or that may be an “abuse of the process of the court.” If a criminal litigation is filed before a magistrate without a ‘reasonable cause’, the provisions give power to the magistrate to direct the complainant to pay compensation to the accused.
An increased focus by the courts on the efficient disposal of litigation is required. Case management and time wasted costs imposed on litigants and, in some cases, on lawyers themselves will be the most important step towards addressing the issue. It may cause some anxiety, but it could have a deterrent effect. Such measures can be taken at the trial court level, rather than allowing high and mighty to find their way to higher courts. The CPC could be amended to remove the cap on exemplary costs.
Agrees senior counsel and former additional solicitor general Vivek Tankha. “Imposing heavy costs will act as a deterrent. Lawyers who resort to giving wrong advise and file vexatious petitions should be equally held responsible for wasting judiciary’s time. Any system which does not respect accountability can’t be a good system.”
indu.bhan@expressindia.com
