'Right To Access Justice Not Absolute' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Multiple Frivolous Cases

The Supreme Court recently imposed a heavy cost of Rs.1,00,000 on the petitioner, who over the span of more than 11 years filed frivolous litigants and indulged in forum shopping more than 10 times including before the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court.A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal while upholding the right of the litigants to access the courts as the cornerstone of democracy called out on litigants like the present petitioner responsible for "not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others"."..the right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. When litigants, like the petitioner before us, engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system."It observed: "This Special Leave Petition before us is yet another stark example of the blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process. The petitioner, seemingly blinded by his own sense of grievance, has embarked on a relentless and frivolous litigation spree, dragging this Court and the High Court through multiple meritless review petitions, appeals, and motions, all stemming from his well-reasoned removal from service. This is one of the reasons that results in choking the dockets in courts." The Court further remarked: "Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation."As per brief facts, the petitioner was dismissed from his service in the year 2000 on grounds of misconduct due to frequent and prolonged absence from duty without prior permission or intimation. Aggrieved by this, he filed a statutory appeal which was dismissed. Despite that, the petitioner relentlessly indulged in forum shopping and filed petitions and complaints in different forums on the same cause of action. In all forums, his dismissal from service on grounds of misconduct was upheld.Against the dismissal of the statutory appeal, he approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, which upheld his dismissal from service. Against this, he filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The petitioner did not stop there. He then filed a review petition against the High Court's judgment, which was dismissed as the Court found there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Against this, he filed two SLPs before the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. The petitioner then filed an application to the Ministry of Law & Justice seeking inquiry against the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and against the judges of the Bombay High Court including the then Chief Justice which had dismissed his writ petition and the review petition. Due to a discrepancy in the records, the review petition was listed against in 2015, 5 years after its dismissal, but again got dismissed. Relentless in his efforts to continue pursuing litigation, the petitioner attempted to file a second review petition before the High Court, the permission of which was denied. So, the petitioner went on to challenge the 2015 dismissal of the review petition. This was denied as well. When the doors to the courts got shut, the petitioner filed complaints alleging corruption against judges including the then President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of the High Court. In 2021, the Chief Justice of the High Court responded that without a proper review petition, the issues cannot be reopened. Thinking of this as an opportunity to re-litigate, the petitioner filed a second review petition and an application for coordination of 11 years of delay. Both were dismissed by the High Court which observed that attempts were made to take "disadvantage of the technical endorsement" of the Chief Justice. Against this order, the present SLP was filed before the Supreme Court. Referring was made to Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014), Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) and K.C. Tharakan v State Bank of India & Ors (2023) in which the Court has strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit ...

'Right To Access Justice Not Absolute' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Multiple Frivolous Cases

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

'Right To Access Justice Not Absolute' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Multiple Frivolous Cases

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers