Rajasthan passes new law court marshal on reviewing ‘vexatious cases’

Email

Rajasthan recently joined the list of states enacting a law to deal with litigants overburdening courts and harassing people by filing vexatious cases.
But it might have overlooked the bigger challenge of dealing with such litigants without raising fears of misuse of the law against public-spirited and genuine litigants.
Though it cannot be denied that litigation is being used by some as a tool to harass rivals including those in business or politics, there is a need to exercise caution while enacting anti-vexatious litigation laws as more and more people are invoking the judiciary to deal with high-handedness and corruption.
Ironically, the Rajasthan legislature passed the law this month reportedly without any discussion as the Opposition focused on demanding the Chief Minister’s resignation over allegations of corruption.
There was no debate either when the Madhya Pradesh legislature passed its version of the law with a voice vote in July.
The law empowers the Advocate General (AG) to move the court to get a person habitually filing vexatious petitions declared a ‘vexatious litigant’ who will be barred from filing any case without prior permission from the court.
The state of Madras enacted a law against vexatious litigants in 1949, and Maharashtra came up with such a law in 1971.
A couple of other states joined them before the recent move in quick succession by Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
At a time when the government has become one of the biggest litigants and litigation questioning government policies and exposing corruption in high places is serving as an effective tool in the hands of activists, it could be unsafe to empower the AG, appointed by the government in power, to play a key role in this regard.
In fact, there should be enough safeguards to protect genuine litigants especially against victimisation by the government.
The AG can browbeat a litigant by merely questioning a case as vexatious right at the initial stage of proceedings.
The right to initiate action should vest in any victim and the Registrar General of the high court in the state could be made the nodal authority to initiate the move against vexatious litigants.
It is also not wise to confer powers on the AG when government departments also have a tendency to file such cases.
The Supreme Court has recorded the fact in a number of judgments while expressing displeasure.
Can a government department be declared a vexatious litigant? If not, it will be unjust to expose one party (an individual many a time fights the government as an adversary) to the risk of being declared a vexatious litigant while the other party can feel safe in exercising even far-fetched litigation options.
In view of the risk of being barred from filing any case, public-spirited persons having no personal gains would be discouraged from taking on the government.
Further, activists relying on information made available by whistleblowers or third parties would feel unsafe with the risk of being declared vexatious litigant for moving court without reasonable cause.
More so, in view of uncertainty over what would be considered ‘reasonable cause’ and who would be termed ‘habitual’ in the subjective assessment of the high court. IT IS not uncommon to see courts dismissing some petitions as frivolous or vexatious even after initially finding merit and considering the contentions of a litigant in detail.
The law could deter such a litigant from moving court a second time even in a genuine case. If at all there is a need for such a law, it should be enacted by the Centre which would ensure a country-wide debate, apart from bringing about uniformity.
The states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan would have done better by calling for a debate rather than hastening with the law particularly when courts are already empowered to deal with the problem.
Apart from inherent powers of superior courts, there are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering courts to dismiss such petitions. Courts have also been imposing fines in such cases.
Besides, a victim has a right to seek compensation for malicious prosecution by lodging a separate case.
There can be no objection to action against people habitually filing vexatious cases but safeguarding the rights of bona fide litigants is as important.
In fact, Lord Macaulay, who laid the foundation of most laws in India, also saw vexatious litigation as a threat but was against curbing it at the cost of the right of genuine litigants to move courts.
While rejecting a proposal to hike court fees to check frivolous cases, he said: “It will no doubt drive away dishonest plaintiffs who cannot pay the fee. But it will also drive away honest plaintiffs.”
SC has to provide ‘social’ justiceThe Supreme Court needs to consider matters that touch upon the rights of people in general or a particular section of society on a priority basis.
The gay community saw as a setback a recent court decision, where it admitted a petition wherein it would decide if the Gujarat government had discriminated against a vernacular film on the gay community by denying it tax exemption.
The displeasure expressed by a section of people is justified as it takes years before an admitted matter is taken up for disposal.
The filmmaker who has made the film on the sensitive subject apparently cannot wait that long. The court has to be sensitive to such problems to ensure that a claim to a right did not lose relevance with time.
As a eunuch, Kamala Jaan was elected as the Mayor of Katni in Madhya Pradesh in December 1999 but her gender came in the way. An election tribunal nullified her election and the decision was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2003, claiming that the seat had to be reserved for women.
Kamala rushed to the Supreme Court in 2003 itself but the matter kept pending till 2012 when the court disposed of the petition without a decision, as the tenure of the election was already over.
Declassified files reveal diplomatic war in 1965
While an exhibition at the India Gate lawns recreated some battle scenes of the 1965 India-Pakistan war for the benefit of people, a declassified file at the National Archives shows how Islamabad took the battle to the lowest levels by attacking, humiliating and denying basic facilities to Indian diplomats at Karachi and Daca during the war which took place fifty years ago.
Pakistan Police prohibited Indian flag on the Chancery building in Daca, evicted staff , put them in cramped quarters and took over the premises on September 19, a declassified file (File No. PI/114/27/65) records.
The chancery in Karachi was attacked by about 3000 people with the connivance of the police on September 21. Police raided and sought Cypher documents which were destroyed by Indian diplomats as a measure of precaution.
Police denied to residents permission to go to the market to buy provisions from September 11-16. Besides, accounts of the High Commission and officers were frozen, the note says. The 50-year-old declassified war time papers show that India clearly emerged victorious by resisting to be drawn into this battlefield.
The papers record that Pakistani diplomats and staff continued to occupy areas in Tilak Marg and Diplomatic Enclave, apart from 40 furnished apartments in Lodhi hotel being handed over to them on September 16.
India allowed them to go to the market four times a day. Besides, all provisions were regularly delivered.