SC judge looks to fix delays in filing cases, hold govt accountable

For this judge, a note by Supreme Court officials is curiously the single most important document in any case before him. This note, however, has nothing to do with the facts of that case, or the kind of people involved; not even arguments by the big guns make a difference to the final outcome.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has his eyes fixated just on one thing -- how long did it take for the case to be filed. He seems to have taken it upon himself to fix the recurrent practice of huge delays by governments in filing cases, and make public authorities accountable. In the last seven months, Justice Kaul has issued almost 100 orders, reproaching what he has frequently called the ‘can’t care less’ attitude of legal departments of various states. Some of these orders contained strictures with monetary penalties while some others even suggested revamping the entire legal department of that particular state.

Interestingly, Justice Kaul has even coined a term for these cases filed belatedly — “certificate cases”. His orders have defined a certificate case as one which has been filed by the officials only to get certificates of dismissal from the apex court.

While there is demonstrably no effort involved to either file such cases in time, or have them listed for hearing as quickly as possible, a final order of rejection by the Supreme Court is to only help save the skin of officials responsible to file appeal against an adverse order by a high court.

These cases are filed way beyond the period mandated under the law of limitation only to let officers go back and tell their superiors that nothing can be done since the Supreme Court has refused to entertain a case.

The judge has repeatedly come down heavily on this practice, saying certificate cases can’t clog boards of the Supreme Court at the sheer convenience of the government officers.

“Supreme Court cannot be a place for the government to walk in as and when they feel like,” Justice Kaul responded when being requested to take a liberal view since a government is involved. When change of guard in a state is cited as a chief reason for delay, the judge has asserted that “governments may come and go” but a litigation must follow the requirements of the law. The submissions of “administrative lapses and red tape” have elicited even stronger comments: “This Court is not here to protect the administrative inefficiencies and incompetence of the officials of the state governments.”

When some states tried to take refuge under the present pandemic, justice Kaul was quick to note that Covid-19 was a sheer pretext because the orders being challenged were passed by high courts in 2019.

Justice Kaul has maintained that the government may change the law to give itself more time to move appeals if its officers are incapable of timely filings, but they cannot expect the top court to accord any special treatment.

These body of orders have invariably imposed fines on the government departments, with a direction to recover the monetary losses from the officers whose negligence and ineptitude caused this. For some states such as Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, the judge had to further make it clear every subsequent case filed with an inordinate delay will only increase the quantum of fine.

Around 100 orders on, some of the states have learned enough to immediately ask for withdrawing a case when it comes up for a hearing. Given the apparent determination of justice Kaul to change what has become a custom, the lawyers’ attempt to wriggle out still fails most of the time.