Attitude Of Government As A Litigant And The Plight Of Access To Justice
Explanation:
The phrase “Attitude of Government as a litigant” refers to the manner in which the government behaves when it is a party to a legal proceeding—either as a plaintiff or defendant. Courts have repeatedly observed that the government often acts in a dilatory, complacent, or obstructive manner, which adversely affects citizens’ ability to obtain timely justice. This problem is closely linked to the plight of access to justice, as delays, lack of cooperation, or excessive reliance on technicalities by the government can defeat the fundamental rights of the people.
The plight of access to justice arises because the state, despite being a public servant, sometimes acts as a “giant litigant” that delays proceedings, files unnecessary appeals, or resists enforcement of its own obligations. Such conduct creates a serious imbalance in the judicial process, particularly for ordinary citizens who have limited resources.
Key Issues Highlighted by Courts:
Delay in Litigation:
The government often takes a casual approach to legal proceedings, resulting in prolonged litigation.
Citizens face years of uncertainty before their grievances are resolved.
Obstruction of Justice:
Tactics like frequent adjournments, reliance on technicalities, or non-appearance in court slow down judicial processes.
Violation of Fundamental Rights:
Delays caused by government in litigation can violate Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) because citizens’ access to justice is an essential component of life with dignity.
Impact on Citizens:
Ordinary people often cannot match the resources and legal machinery of the government, making it harder to enforce their rights.
Relevant Case Law:
State of Punjab v. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2010) 5 SCC 133
The Supreme Court observed that delay in government action can seriously affect fundamental rights, including life and liberty.
While the case primarily dealt with death penalty delay, the principle applies to government litigation delaying justice.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
The Court held that government departments cannot use the machinery of the state to obstruct justice.
Any dilatory tactics in litigation by the government are contrary to principles of equity and fairness.
R. K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675
The Court emphasized that government must act fairly and in good faith in litigation.
Abuse of power by acting as an obstinate litigant undermines public confidence in justice.
Legal Principles:
Doctrine of Equality Before Law (Article 14):
The government, like any private litigant, must not misuse its position to gain advantage in litigation.
Duty of State as a Public Servant:
The government has a constitutional obligation to ensure timely and effective justice.
Right to Access Justice:
Access to courts is a fundamental right under Article 21, as recognized in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979) 3 SCC 531, where delay in providing justice was held to violate the right to life.
Principle of Fair Play in Litigation:
Government is expected to avoid vexatious or obstructive litigation tactics.
Supreme Court repeatedly admonishes that the state cannot be an oppressive litigant.
Consequences of Government’s Negative Attitude:
Citizens may lose faith in the legal system.
Delays can lead to loss of evidence, deterioration of social or economic rights, and injustice.
Courts sometimes have to intervene strictly to control government delays, issuing directions to prevent abuse.
Summary:
The attitude of government as a litigant can significantly impact the plight of access to justice. While the government is meant to protect citizens’ rights, it sometimes acts in a manner that obstructs justice, delays proceedings, or exploits its superior resources. Indian courts have consistently held that government must litigate fairly, timely, and responsibly, upholding citizens’ fundamental right to effective and prompt access to justice under Articles 14 and 21.
RELATED Blog
0 comments