In a very major development, we saw how as recently as on July 20, 2023, the Delhi High Court in a most laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Naresh Sharma vs Union of India & Ors in WP (CRL) 1797/2023 & connected matters has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the Bar Council of India must frame guidelines for establishing an “ethical code” for “self represented litigants” to save precious judicial time and minimize frivolous litigations. The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further also added that the ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimizing the flow of frivolous litigation and will reduce the burden of courts. The Bench added that the ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimizing the flow of frivolous litigation and will reduce the burden of courts.
At the very outset, this notable judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “In India, the judicial system is burdened with overwhelming caseload, leading to significant backlog of cases in the Courts. On one hand, there are meritorious litigants with legitimate legal claims who seek to have their rights determined through petitions or by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is also no dearth of trivial pursuits of legal remedies, wasting judicial adjudicatory time of the Court. It is evident that such frivolous and meritless litigation, which is significantly large in number, contributes to the existing caseload. This necessitates immediate attention by all stakeholders who have responsibility of ensuring speedy and quality justice.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 2 that, “The present case is a classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation, where this Court encounters incoherent and confusing stories in the name of facts and absurd reliefs.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “The petitioner herein is, as disclosed from the petition, an alumni of IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, and has worked as an academician at IIT Delhi and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Mumbai, who alleges that his fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infringed which extends to his ‘right to have public organisations that are not criminally established’. The petitioner alleges that the respondents are involved in criminal activities, and have established various public organisations criminally, thereby infringing his fundamental right in above terms. The petitioner also claims that his ‘right to have access to one’s own criminal records’, covered under Article 21, has also been infringed by the respondents.”
As we see, the Bench states in para 7 that, “The case set out by the petitioner is that soon after independence, the Government of the nation had started indulging in crimes affecting the entire economy and one such crime had been committed in connivance with Tata Companies and Trusts i.e. respondent nos. 5 to 7. It is stated that these respondents commit humongous crimes in top public organisations in collusion with the Indian Government, which include crimes such as sedition and suspension of rights of its employees. It is alleged by the petitioner that the criminal economy supported by respondent nos. 5 to 7 is worth lakhs of crores of rupees.”
In hindsight, the Bench specifies in para 8 that, “In the petition, the petitioner has described his educational and professional background. It is stated that he is an alumni of IIT, Kanpur and IIT, Bombay and has also pursued his education in USA, post which he had joined IIT, Delhi from 2005-07 and thereafter, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in 2007, before resigning in 2016. It is stated that in May, 2023, he had come to know that TIFR had criminally accepted his protest resignation as it was not investigating possible cheating by a student during the Ph.D qualifying exam in which he was the examiner.”
Further, the Bench observes in para 9 that, “It is further stated that this Court should examine the humongous ramifications of the criminal situation highlighted in the petition and award death penalty, rigorous imprisonment, and solitary confinement to the criminals among the Government and Tatas, and order that the control, day-to-day operations, and properties of respondent nos.7 and 8 should be taken over by the Government to recover the loss caused to this country.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 48 that, “Having perused the petition and having heard the arguments addressed by the petitioner, this Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner herein has only levelled bald allegations against respondents which include a large number of companies, trusts, not only present but even past Governments of the nation, constitutional post holders, as well as other public organisations. However, for making such tall claims and levelling allegations of such a nature against the respondents, the petitioner has not placed on record a single piece of evidence or information which would supplement or buttress his claims or arguments.”
Adding more to it, the Bench also notes in para 49 that, “While also claiming that the ‘criminal economy’ supported by respondent no. 7 is worth more than hundreds of lakhs of crores of rupees, for which petitioner has given some self-created charts and diagrams, the petitioner has not brought on record any evidence to disclose commission of any cognizable offence committed by any of the respondents arraigned in the present petition.”
Most astoundingly, the Bench observes in para 50 that, “In this background, it is also important to note that on the basis of such baseless allegations, the petitioner has sought initiation of criminal prosecution, including giving punishments such as death penalty through firing squads and/or rigorous imprisonment to respondent no. 5-7, all the governing bodies of respondent no. 8 as well as officials of the government in the Ministry of Defence. Another astonishing relief sought by the petitioner relates to stay on the construction of new Parliament building and directing destruction of the same, merely because the contract for development/construction of the same was awarded to one of the companies of respondent no. 7.”
Furthermore, the Bench states in para 51 that, “Another relief sought in the present petition is with regard to taking appropriate action against respondent no. 3-5 and other police organisations for not acting on the various complaints filed by petitioner as well as against police in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Needless to say, such a prayer is devoid of any merit as this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over police organisations of the State of Punjab or of Tamil Nadu.”
What’s more, the Bench points out in para 52 that, “Moreover, the petitioner has merely averred, once or twice in the petition, that the rights of employees, working in the companies or organisation of respondent no. 7-8, are regularly violated. However, nothing has been placed on record to even substantiate such claims or to show to this Court as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. The petitioner has not shown to this Court as to what fundamental right or legal right of his is being violated by the respondents so as to persuade this Court to give its indulgence to the present petition.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 67 that, “Before parting with this case, it is imperative for this Court to highlight its concern over the substantial amount of judicial time devoted to comprehending the contents of these petitions, running into hundreds of annexures and thousands of pages. Ultimately, this exhaustive review revealed no valid cause of action to have arisen in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the reliefs sought by the petitioner were inherently absurd and fell outside the scope of what this Court could grant.”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 68 that, “This Court remains aware of the fact that in India, access to law and the fundamental right to seek recourse to legal remedies provided under Article 226 of Constitution of India, given the long history of judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Courts, is a valuable right. The citizens should have free access to the Courts and filing of public interest litigation or invoking writ jurisdiction as it has and will, on many occasions, result in litigants raising noble and important issues which result in evolution of law and jurisprudence with the changing societal situations. But such free access to the Courts cannot be granted to individuals who abuse this privilege by filing frivolous petitions, such as the present one.”
Bluntly put, the Bench added in para 69 that, “While the growth of law is always welcome by way of filing PIL etc., filing of frivolous litigations without any reason, which consumes the precious time of Courts, cannot have the protection of the principle of free access to justice and is certainly not welcome.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 70 that, “Though, there may be some difficulty while drawing a line between a genuine litigation and a frivolous litigation which will not have protection of free access to justice, litigation for no cause must come in the category of litigation abuse clogging the dockets of justice.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 86 that, “This Court notes that it has a duty to protect the right of the citizens to access Courts and that it may not be possible to deny access to Court even to a vexatious litigant, yet there is a need to curb this tendency by not overlooking the abuse of process of law by filing frivolous and vexatious litigation. This Court also recognizes its duty to protect self-represented litigants’ interests, however, it cannot be taken to such an extreme that the frivolous and multiple litigations assume overwhelming indulgence consuming time of the Court.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench states in para 86 that, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 had acknowledged the role which could be played by the Bar Council of India, in limiting the filing of frivolous litigation as under:
“…The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
***
The trial court in this case will remind itself of S. 35-A C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival value and should be disposed of forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned. We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High Court by a callous party. We more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to the court a case which was disingenuous or worse. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will activate this obligation. We are constrained to make these observations and hope that the cooperation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench for spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such as the one we are disposing of…””
For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 88 that, “However, the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court was in regards to the conduct of Advocates, and limiting the filing of frivolous litigation by them. This Court is of the view that a similar obligation exists on the part of the litigant appearing in person, since when a litigant appears in person, he is essentially standing in the shoes of an officer of a Court, and he is under similar obligation to apprise the Court with the correct facts of the case and not mislead the Court in any regard.”
Frankly speaking, the Bench underscores in para 89 that, “Self-represented litigants bear certain responsibilities when presenting their case before the Court. While they may lack legal training, they are still expected to fulfil certain duties to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process. They have a duty to critically assess the merits of their claims and consider whether there is a reasonable legal basis for their case. Since frivolous litigation burdens the Court system, wastes judicial resources, and hinders the administration of justice, it is the responsibility of the self-represented litigants to ensure that their case has a genuine legal basis, supported by relevant facts and legal principles.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench laments in para 90 that, “While there are ethical restrictions on advocates, there are none on self-represented litigants. The Courts often experience abusive and frivolous litigation which results in an enormous amount of wastage of time. While the code of ethics exists for lawyers, the same does not exist in case of litigants appearing in person, which is a barrier in itself for the justice delivery system.”
Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 91 that, “This embargo of absence of ethical conduct needs to be addressed by the Bar Council of India, and some guidelines for establishment of ethical code for self-represented litigants need to be framed. This ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimising the flow of frivolous litigation, and thus reduce the burden of Courts.”
Broadly speaking, the Bench concedes in para 93 that, “The judiciary faces a significant and pressing challenge in the form of frivolous litigation. False claims and meritless cases chokes the judicial system, consuming valuable time and resources that could be better utilised for legitimate and deserving causes. While in a democratic society, there may not always be consensus on all issues, there can be no dispute regarding the need to address this problem by way of rule of law.”
To be sure, the Bench observes in para 94 that, “While this Court is sensitive that the doors of the Courts are open to every citizen who seeks redressal in good faith, the Courts cannot suffer in silence, the unending filing of baseless claims unsupported by any document against every possible past and present, Government and Private authority of our country, every public institute, the leaders who have passed away including the freedom fighters and past and present Supreme Court Judges. This Court does not deem it appropriate that the Government and other authorities should even be burdened with the task of defending the petition or this Court being troubled for adjudicating the frivolous petition.”
Truth be told, the Bench holds in para 95 that, “A substantial amount of judicial time is consumed to hear such litigant, as the litigant has a right to come to the Court and file a case seeking remedy for his grievance, even if the petition needs to be heard on its maintainability or merit, the judge is occupied with a substantial amount of judicial time disposing of the case after going through the file which may run into thousands of pages. While some of such litigation will reveal that the litigant used it as an outlet for petty grievance, some may go beyond and rest on vindictiveness or hypersensitivity. At the same time, there can be no denying that a frivolous claimant wants the judge to examine the case arguing that the claim and the grievance have to be examined as it lies in the eyes of the beholder, i.e. the petitioner. It is time to recognize that the real price of such abuse of the process of law is paid by the litigants who have meritorious claims.”
More to the point, the Bench states in para 96 that, “It is imperative and justifiable to establish robust measures that serve as a strong deterrent to discourage the filing of frivolous cases. By curbing the filing of such cases, the judicial system can allocate its time and resources more effectively, reducing the burden of pending cases and promoting a more efficient administration of justice.”
Most commendably, the Bench hastens to add in para 104 stating that, “In these circumstances, this Court sincerely hopes that the Bar Council of India will readily and positively come forward to help the Bench, spend more judicial time on adjudicating meritorious disputes speedily and efficiently, than being bothered and overburdened with flagrant misuse of magnanimity of the courts of law while dealing with malicious, vexatious and frivolous litigations. The Courts will have time to meaningfully deal with meritorious litigation placed before it rather than going through such frivolous litigation as a judge has to go through contents of every petition placed before it even for the purpose of exercising its power to examine that the legal and valid grounds exist and the pleadings fulfil the ingredients of law under which the petitions have been filed.”
On a closer scrutiny, the Bench found what it notes in para 114 that, “The petitioner in the present case is an alumni of IIT, Delhi and Bombay and has rather remained associated with IIT, Delhi, for long. It is stated that he has himself drafted the petition and was fully cognizant of his decision to proceed as a petitioner in person. Moreover, he demonstrated a sound understanding of the purpose and legal basis upon which he approached the court, assuming full responsibility for the contents of the petition and possessing relevant and substantiated materials within his possession and control. He was given a choice of being assisted by a counsel, but he refused to be assisted.”
As a corollary, the Bench notes in para 115 that, “In this Court’s opinion, reasonable sanctions and imposing the cost would go a long way in deterring such litigants before pursuing frivolous litigation.”
For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 116 that, “It is made clear that this Court, by way of the present judgment, should not be taken to be laying down the law putting any restriction on the right of a citizen to access the Court or to curb noble and creative advocacy which may stunt the growth of jurisprudence or contributing meaningfully to the growth of law and ensuring implementation of fundamental rights in case of such violation but deter and de-clog the legal system of such frivolous litigation by fear of financial sanction and deter them from filing unfounded litigation.”
Honestly speaking, the Bench notes in para 118 that, “Given the volume of frivolous litigation staring hard at the overburdened judiciary, it is the right time for taking action against such litigants. The resolute stance expressed by this Court through this judgment endeavours to initiate a new paradigm and a debate calling for appropriate rules or law to deal with such limitations.”
While laying down a time period of two weeks and filing compliance thereof with the Registry as mentioned in para 121, the Bench in its concluding part holds in para 120 that, “Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed along with pending applications, being frivolous and devoid of merit, with cost of Rs.30,000/- in each petition.”
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court deserves to be especially complimented for catching the bull by the horns and mincing just no words to hold that BCI must frame guidelines for establishing ‘ethical code for self represented litigants’ to minimize frivolous litigations. It will go a long way in putting our judicial system back in order and save the precious judicial time. This most pressing issue cannot be now put on the back burner any longer and must be addressed at the earliest! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi