Law Ministry asks government to withdraw “frivolous and vexatious” cases (again), insert arbitration clauses in work contract

Long accepted to be one of the biggest ills within the Indian judicial set up, the issue of pendency has garnered the attention of the Law Ministry. As per a recent report in the Times of India, governments at both the Central and State level have been asked to withdraw ‘frivolous and vexatious’ cases. This is not the first time that the Law Ministry, currently helmed by Sadanandna Gowda, has made an effort in this direction..Half a decade ago, the Law Ministry had released the National Litigation Policy of 2010, under which States and central governments had been asked to review those cases which could be withdrawn, particularly those involving petty offences and traffic challans..Apart from encouraging parties to adopt ADR methods, the 2010 Policy also recommended that State appeals be filed only in certain circumstances and that the appeals be filed within the limitation period. The underlying idea being that the country’s biggest litigator, the State, should reduce its own filings..The recent policy seeks to build on this school of thought, but is not limited to the role of the State as a party before the court..According to the TOI report, the law ministry has also written to the chief justices of high courts, advancing the use of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under this provision, judges have the power to end judicial proceedings without rendering a judgment. The number of times this provision has been used would certainly make for an interesting statistic..The increasing pendency figures can also be attributed to the existence of outdated or highly contentious laws. Take for example the criminal defamation case instituted against Tamil Nadu actor-turned-politician Vijayakanth. Even though the Supreme Court eventually granted a stay on the criminal proceedings, the larger issue that will be heard is the constitutional validity of criminal defmation itself. In fact, while arguing his case, the petitioner has contended that these provisions violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution..Of course, it would be unfair to place the blame on the government or the courts alone. Part of the problem in reducing pendency is that the causes are many, including non-State actors. Although ML Sharma may receive an unfair amount of attention given his frequent appearances in the Apex Court, he is not the only one with questionable reasons for approaching the courts..For example, in December last year a PIL was filed in the Madras High Court against the court granting holidays for “north Indian” festivals like Diwali. Imposing costs of twenty thousand on the “public spirited” petition, the Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held,.“There is no north-south divide, but for the endeavours of persons like the petitioner, who seek to raise divisive issues only to gain publicity and create unrest among people.”.And the last, equally important part of the problem is the lack of attention provided to data analysis. This is especially relevant in the field of pendency, where the classification of what constitutes a pending case can reduce pendency figures by more than half..So what is the way forward?.Perhaps India could learn from countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore or England and tackle the pendency issue by implementing a system of effective case management in the courts. Relief can also be found in the implementation of under utilised provisions of law. For example, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar has suggested that additional judges can be appointed out of the 50-60 district judges and designated as specialized courts to deal with particular cases..This would curb the inordinate delays which occur as a result of documents not being filed on time. However, the Supreme Court in the Salem Bar Association described rules of procedure as “handsmaids of justice and not its mistress.” It further held that the maximum time limit of 90 days for filing a written statement was directory and not mandatory..If both lawyers and judges don’t make a concerted effort towards decreasing the pendency figures, we might find ourselves in a situation where Justice Lodha’s 365-day working policy will be the only option. And hardly the most effective one.