Law Department Must Not Succumb To Pressure From Other Departments: Bombay High Court Rejects Delayed State Appeal
The Department of Law and Judiciary (DLJ) must act independently and not succumb to pressure mounted by any of the other departments of a State Government, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to condone a delay of 650 days in filing appeal against acquittal in a Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act case. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a single-judge Justice Mahendra Nerlikar also imposed a...
The Department of Law and Judiciary (DLJ) must act independently and not succumb to pressure mounted by any of the other departments of a State Government, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to condone a delay of 650 days in filing appeal against acquittal in a Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act case.
Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a single-judge Justice Mahendra Nerlikar also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Yavatmal district after noting that the DLJ had in January 2024 denied permission to file appeal in the case terming it to be unfit, however, the ACB through various senior officers, kept urging the DLJ to grant leave to file an appeal.
The judge noted that the DLJ though granted permission in July 2025, yet it made a clear statement that the "the instructions for filing of appeal is issued only at the (ACB, Yavatmal) department's risk, cost and consequences.”
Justice Nerlikar noted that from August 2023 till July 2025, the State could not explain why it took at least 1.7 years to decide on whether the appeal must be filed or not. He held that the State failed to give proper explanation for the inordinate delay.
"In fact, the Department of Law and Judiciary has been entrusted with a higher degree of responsibility. It is the said Department which is required to scrutinise the proposals which come before it for filing different proceedings before the higher Courts. Perusal of the communication dated July 15, 2025 issued by the Department makes it clear that the said communication has been made without application of mind. It could be further gathered that, under the garb of reconsideration and without application of mind, the said communication was issued. It was expected from the Department, which is under an obligation to give legal opinion and proper guidance to the other Departments touching upon the subject matters of law, to act accordingly," Justice Nerlikar noted.
In the present case, the judge said, DLJ miserably failed to stand by its earlier firm opinion, wherein, at the earlier point of time, it had held that the proposal was unfit for filing an appeal.
"It appears that, under the pressure of the Department of Anti-Corruption Bureau, the communication was made to the Office of the Government Pleader. It is further to be noted that, like an ordinary litigant, the State also stands on the same footing. On the contrary, a greater responsibility is cast upon the State. There is nothing on record to show that the proposal was reconsidered on merits and on the contrary, Note No.3 of the communication dated July 15, 2025 shows that it was issued at the risk, cost and consequences of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Yavatmal, meaning thereby Law and Judiciary Department has not scrutinised the proposal nor reconsidered it on merits, making it a frivolous appeal," the bench held.
I am not inclined to condone the delay of 630 days, the judge opined adding that the delay is inordinate and the State has failed to explain the same and that the reasons assigned in the application are superficial and lack bona fides. The judge further said that the internal communications between departments is not sufficient to condone the delay.
"The action of directing to file frivolous appeal yielding to external influence has increased the pendency of this Court and is directly responsible for slowing down the delivery of justice. Such a practice requires to be deprecated. The Department of Law and Judiciary is expected to remain firm in its opinion and should not succumb to the pressure of any other Department. The Department, which is entrusted with the responsibility of scrutinising such proposals and providing proper legal opinion, is expected to act independently and in accordance with law," Justice Nerlikar observed.
With these observations, the judge dismissed the State's plea to condone the delay of 650 days for filing appeal against the acquittal.
Appearance:
Additional Public Prosecutor MJ Khan represented the State.
Advocate Atharva Manohar represented the Acquitted Person.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Bhaurao Narayan Kinake (Criminal Application 726 of 2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 393