The Delhi High Court has expressed its concern about the excessive litigation initiated by government bodies, which is causing congestion in the judicial system. In response, it has called upon the Central government to create a well-defined action plan with clear timeframes for the implementation of the National Litigation Policy to address this issue promptly.

A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula has expressed strong criticism regarding the lack of a clear litigation strategy. They pointed out that the situation has remained unchanged since the inception of the 'National Litigation Policy' in 2010, and this stagnation is disheartening.

The Court emphasized that good governance goes beyond merely holding individuals accountable; it also involves establishing an environment where unnecessary litigation can be prevented.

The bench stated, “It is against this backdrop that the call for a ‘National Litigation Policy’ and/ or uniform guidelines for governments, departments, and ministries – gains urgency.” Moreover, given that the government is the most frequent litigant, it is expected to set an example of propriety and establish standards for ethical conduct, fairness, and responsible use of resources in the realm of litigation.

The court highlighted that the policy should clearly define the criteria for commencing or challenging legal proceedings on behalf of the government. Its purpose should extend beyond curbing baseless litigation; it should also outline mechanisms for holding government officers accountable for their decisions in this regard. “There is thus an urgent need for a system that prevents unnecessary litigation by engaging in an audit of the decision-making process that leads to such litigation,” as per the words of the court.

This judgment was delivered in a case that was initially referred by a single judge to examine matters related to the government's responsibility and the absence of a 'National Litigation Policy.' The matter arose in a group of appeals filed by the Indian Railways and the Cement Corporation of India.

The Court noted that the vast majority of cases that are currently causing congestion in the judicial system involve either the Central government, State governments, or public sector undertakings (PSUs).

While the Court recognized its limitation in delving into policymaking and creating such a policy through judicial directives, it asserted that this self-imposed constraint wouldn't deter it from bringing attention to the issue.

The Court expressed its solemn obligation to emphasize to the Union of India the imperative nature of taking decisive action. This action could be in the form of issuing unambiguous and consistent guidelines to various government departments or formalizing a comprehensive 'National Litigation Policy.'

The Court went on to criticize government entities for indulging in frivolous litigation. It stated that such behavior not only wastes taxpayer money but also erodes the very interests of the citizens that these entities are supposed to protect and serve.

The Court pointed out the existence of a concerning mindset and belief among government officers that they can make false claims without facing consequences. Such actions not only perpetuate injustice but also place an undue burden on both the judiciary and the government, as per the bench's opinion.

The bench highlighted that this glaring absence of accountability has substantial implications for the public and underscores the pressing need for systemic reform to avoid the recurrence of such instances. While acknowledging that the immediate fault may rest with the officers, the court emphasized the importance of acknowledging that they function within an institutional framework. It placed a greater responsibility on the government to establish strong systems of checks, balances, and training to guide individual actions in a more responsible manner.

The Court advocated for a system that includes an audit of the decision-making process behind litigation. It stressed the importance of mandatory consultation between government officers involved and legal experts. This consultation aims to prevent the re-litigation of well-settled issues. Furthermore, the Court suggested that these legal experts could be responsible for periodically reviewing past decisions to identify trends of irresponsible litigation, ensuring that lessons are learned and applied in future cases.

The Court additionally emphasized that appropriate action should be taken against officials who are discovered to be negligent in their approach to litigation matters. In terms of ongoing cases, the Court recommended periodic reviews to filter out frivolous litigation. Furthermore, it suggested the organization of mandatory training sessions for officers engaged in the initiation and management of litigation, with a particular focus on strategies to avoid adjournments and unnecessary delays.

The Court acknowledged that the Union Minister of Law and Justice has indicated the preparation of guidelines and policies. However, it stressed that the government shouldn't wait for formal documentation to establish a culture of accountability and minimize unnecessary litigation. In other words, it urged the government to take immediate steps to foster a sense of responsibility among government officers and reduce frivolous legal actions.

The Court suggested that the measures it has recommended can serve as an interim framework and should be implemented as preliminary steps before the formal formulation of policies. These steps should be taken after thorough deliberation involving experts and stakeholders, according to the bench.

In the words of the court, “even the most meticulous policies will serve little purpose if they remain confined to paper. Effective governance doesn't always stem from formalized guidelines; often, it arises from a cultural shift within an institution.”

The Court emphasized that even the most well-crafted policies will have limited impact if they are not put into practice. Effective governance isn't solely dependent on written guidelines; it often depends on a cultural transformation within an organization.