State Should Not Act Like Private Party In Litigation With Citizens; Must Take Balanced, Welfare Oriented Approach: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that in discharging its role as a litigant, the State must adopt a balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims of citizens indiscriminately.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, “The State must exercise due diligence in distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it is justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty must be discharged with a sense of responsibility…In litigation involving the State and its citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos must guide the State's conduct.”

Speaking for the bench Justice Sumeet Goel added that unlike a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable judgment, the State bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity.

Expressing concern on rising pendency, the bench said that the, “Courts across the legal system – this Court being not an exception – are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless dispute(s) constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the overburdened infrastructure.”

These observations were made while quashing an order of Punjab State University whereby admission granted to a medical student under the freedom fighter quota was cancelled despite clear reservation criteria given under the prospectus. 

Despite clear directives given in the prospectus the admission of the petitioner was cancelled, on the basis of a letter dated 14.09.1995 which stated that children adopted by a freedom fighter shall be accorded the benefit only if such freedom fighter did not have any biological child and in the present case the grandfather of the petitioner had adopted his father while already having daughters.

The bench opined that the present case is “an illustration of, how litigations are pursued on behalf of the State”, in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance & judicial propriety, it said.

Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system. This tendency can be curbed only if the Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment, it added.

While quashing the impugned order, the Court directed  the Punjab Government to pay costs of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the State authorities who cancelled the admission.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Sahil, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: Samarveer Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read/download the order