Govt can’t get free pass on inordinate delays, SC tells HCs

The Supreme Court ruled that high courts should not condone government litigation delays, emphasizing accountability and efficiency in public interest.

High courts must not become “surrogates for State laxity and lethargy”, the Supreme Court held on Friday, stressing that common citizens cannot be dragged into perpetual litigation because courts reopen matters at the government’s behest after years of delay.

Govt can’t get free pass on inordinate delays, SC tells HCs

“We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the high courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury,” a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

The ruling came while setting aside a 2017 judgment of the Karnataka high court, which had condoned an extraordinary delay of 3,966 days -- nearly 11 years, by the state housing board in filing a second appeal in a civil case.

In a sharply worded judgment, the bench underscored that condonation of delay is to remain “an exception, not the rule.” Government litigants, it held, must be held to the same standard as private parties.

“Absent sufficient justification, delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of the identity of the applicant,” ruled the court, rejecting the notion that the State is entitled to special treatment under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Tracing the evolution of jurisprudence over six decades, the court noted that earlier indulgence shown to governments on the ground of bureaucratic complexities and institutional inertia was no longer tenable. Instead, parity and accountability are now the guiding principles.

The court noted that most government departments habitually blame red-tapism, administrative bottlenecks, or bureaucratic lethargy for delay, but such justifications amount to excuses rather than genuine explanations.

“Public interest is better served not by excusing governmental inefficiency, but by fostering accountability, diligence, and responsibility in the conduct of public litigation,” held the bench, warning that to condone such delays as a matter of course would erode the discipline imposed by limitation laws, leading to endless uncertainty in litigation.

In the case before it, the Karnataka Housing Board had sought condonation of an 11-year delay, claiming negligence by several officials, including an executive engineer. Despite repeated reminders from 2006 onwards, crucial documents for filing the appeal were not supplied in time.

What shocked the apex court further was that disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer were initiated only in March 2017, barely a month after the condonation application was filed. The bench said this suggested the officer was made a scapegoat to demonstrate false bona fides before the high court.

“To our utter shock and dismay, the high court accepted the explanation of sufficient cause offered by the respondent. We are at our wits’ end to understand the aforesaid findings,” the bench remarked, overturning the Karnataka HC’s decision.

The judgment repeatedly stressed that the State, while litigating, acts not in a private capacity but as a trustee of public interest, and therefore, its higher duty is to act with vigilance and promptness.

“To permit condonation of delay to become a matter of course for the government would have the deleterious effect of institutionalising inefficiency…Public interest lies not in condoning governmental indifference, but in compelling efficiency, responsibility, and timely action.”

The bench added that public interest is not synonymous with the cause of the government but with enforcement of the rule of law, certainty of legal rights, and a responsive administration.

The judgment concluded with a strong reminder to all high courts: delay by government litigants cannot be condoned simply because refusal might result in dismissal of a potentially meritorious case. “Public interest does not lie in condoning governmental negligence, but in compelling efficiency, responsibility, and timely decision-making,” it said.