Frivolous litigations by State Governments!

It appears, at times that the treasury of various State Government is filled to the brim! One is not surprised at the inclination of various State Governments to spend common man’s money on fruitless litigation. The Supreme Court of our country has, time and again denounced the practice adopted various State Government of filing appeals as a matter of course.  In the case of State of Uttarkhand  & Ors v. Kanhya Lal [2014] INSC 244 (29 April 2014), the Supreme Court reprimanded the State Government of Uttarkhand in pursuing a frivolous litigation. 

What are the facts of this case?

In this case, a teacher named Kanhya Lal applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade in the government school in the State of Uttarkhand. In this regard, the State Government had issued an advertisement seeking applications for this post. Further, the first advertisement clearly indicated the last date for submission of Application to be 21st November, 1997, which was advanced and preponed to 10th November, 1997 in terms of a correction issued on 24th October, 1997. The only infirmity in the Application of Mr. Kanhyalal was that he had failed to include his Marksheet along with his Application Form, which was submitted by him on 4.11.1997.  He had made full compliance by personally filing his Marksheet on 12.11.1997. The State Government, instead of keeping in perspective the fact that a corrigendum has been issued preponing the last date of submission of Forms from 21.11.1997 to 10.11.1997, and instead of being fair and flexible, rejected the application of Mr. Kanhyalal and instead selected another applicant  whose quality points were much lower in comparison to Mr. Kanhyalal.

What action did Mr. Kanhyalal take to fight this injustice?

Mr Kanhyalal was rightly disturbed by the situation that the last appointed candidate had 55.6 quality points whereas he possessed much higher merit, i.e. 58.4 quality points. He therefore filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarkhand at Nanital.

How did the case proceed?

The Single Judge of the Uttarkhand High Court upheld the petition of Mr. Kanhyalal.  After going into the factual matrix of the case, the learned Single Judge had directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of Mr. Kanhyalal should be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his selection . The State Government filed an appeal against the decision of the Single Judge.  However, the order of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Uttarkhand High Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the Uttarkhand High Court, the State Government filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

How did the matter proceed before the Supreme Court?

The State Government of Uttarkhand did not challenge the appointment per se.  The only grievance of the State Government was that Mr. Kanhyalal cannot claim appointment from back date i.e., from 1997.  After reading the documents filed before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court formed the view that the action of the Additional Director, Education of the State Government of Uttarkhand amounted to contempt of Court.  This is because the State Government had simply not disclosed any other impediment in the appointment of Mr. Kanhyalal as directed by the High Court. The State Government had, on the contrary, repeated the same facts, which had not found favour before the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that “It is palpably clear that the Additional Director of Education, Garwal Division, Pauri, has contumaciously adorned itself with appellate powers over the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court”.

What were the special observations of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court made the following observation which is worth taking a note of:

“In this case, the writ petitioner is a Teacher and it is unfair to him to be repeatedly drawn into fighting futile, if not frivolous litigation by the State. It has become the practice of the State to carry on filing appeals even where the case does not deserve it, knowing fully well that private respondents will be physically fatigued and economically emasculated in pursuing protracted litigation”.

What was the ruling of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court directed the State Government of Uttarkhand  to appoint Mr. Knahyalal the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, i.e. the advertised post, treating him to have been appointed along with the other candidates who were selected in response to the subject advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade.  The Supreme Court further held that the seniority of Mr. Kanhyalal shall be fixed such that it is not detrimental to the services already rendered by him.

Are long drawn litigation processes considered as a mitigating factors while awarding sentence?

I am not being original when I say that litigation in India is a mentally draining experience, both for the accused and the victim.   For the accused, the psychological trauma of undergoing numerous years of never ending litigation is the biggest punishment.  Whilst the final judgment is being awarded there is always an apprehension in the mind of the accused whether the mental torture suffered in the long drawn litigation process will act as one of the mitigating factors by the Supreme Court while awarding judgment.

There is no straight jacket formula which is applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while awarding sentence.  Below is one interesting case  (V.K. VERMA v. CBI [2014] INSC 96 (14 February 2014) which sheds light on the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court while awarding sentence.

What is this case all about?

The accused in this case was tried under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.  The charge was that the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.265/- from a contractor. According to the accused, the contractor had an axe to grind since the accused did not budge to his demand for improper measurement of the work done by him and he was actually trapped at his instance. FIR was registered on 21.12.1984. The sessions court convicted him of the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the charged Sections, as per Judgment dated 10.04.2003.

What happened thereafter?

The accused approached the High Court.  However, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.  The accused therefore approached the Supreme Court.

What factors did Supreme Court take into consideration?

It was noted by the Supreme Court that it took ten years for the matter to be registered as sessions case and stranger is it to see that the trial also took almost ten years and still stranger is that the matter took ten years in the High Court.

Pursuant to dismissal of the appeal before the High Court, the appellant surrendered before the Special Judge on 03.10.2003 and he was sent to custody. On 28.10.2013, the Supreme Court issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence. Thereafter, by Order dated 16.12.2013, the appellant was enlarged on bail.

In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.

Did the Supreme Court factored in the long delay while awarding the sentence?

It was observed by the Supreme Court that the long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence.

How did the foregoing principle affect the case under discussion?

The Supreme Court took into consideration that the FIR was registered by the CBI in 1984. The matter came before the sessions court only in 1994. The Session’s court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.

The Supreme Court took into consideration that the accused was 76 years of age at the stage of filing the appeal. The Supreme Court was also informed that he the accused was in not in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence was of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal on the grounds that at that age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, the Supreme Court opined that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.

The substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was imposed as fine.