IN WP (CRL) 1797 OF 2023 - DEL HC – This is a classic case of frivolous and vexatious litigation with incoherent and confusing stories in the name of facts and absurd reliefs; Courts cannot suffer in silence: Delhi HC slaps Rs 90,000 fine on IIT alumnus for filing baseless claims against every possible past and present Govt and Private authority of India, every public institute, leaders, freedom fighters and past and present Supreme Court Judges
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [20.07.2023]

Read Order:  Naresh Sharma v. Union of India

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 21, 2023: The Delhi High Court dismissed three writ petitions filed by an alumnus of IIT Delhi on the grounds that they were frivolous and vexatious. The Court imposed a cost of Rs.30,000 in each petition, to be deposited with Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Social Security and Welfare Fund, its Employees Welfare Fund, and Civil and Session Courts Stenographers Association, hoping that it would deter such litigants from abusing the process of law in future. The High Court further suggested that the Bar Council of India frame guidelines for establishing an ethical code for self-represented litigants to save precious judicial time and minimise frivolous litigations. The ethical grounding would play a crucial role in minimising the flow of frivolous litigation which would reduce the burden of Courts, opined the Bench.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the petitions made by the petitioner were baseless and the defamatory allegations against various respondents, including top government officials and institutions, without providing any evidence. The reliefs sought by the petitioner were absurd and impossible to grant. 

The Bench observed 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.”

The Court noted that while access to justice was a fundamental right, frivolous litigation burdens the judicial system and wastes resources. However, striking a balance between the two was important, while genuine litigants should be given access, frivolous claims needed to be deterred. It stated that self-represented litigants deserve some indulgence but may lack legal training, they also have an ethical obligation to not file frivolous cases and 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. ”

In the matter at hand, the petitioner had alleged that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was being infringed. He had argued that Article 21 includes "right to have public organisations that are not criminally established”. He contended that hundreds of Government organisations, like Police, Department of Atomic Energy, Prime Minister’s Office, various Ministries, Department of Personnel & Training, Central Information Commission, Reserve Bank of India, Comptroller and Auditor General, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Indian Administrative Services, State or Union Territory Governments, IIT, IIM, AIIMS etc, were criminal “in the extreme sense of sedition” because they were Societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and there was a legal option for such organisations to disobey the Government and even join forces against the Government. The petitioner also claimed that his ‘right to have access to one’s own criminal records’, was covered under Article 21, which had also been infringed by the respondents.

The case set out by the petitioner was 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. It was stated that these respondents commit humongous crimes in top public organisations in collusion with the Indian Government, which included crimes such as sedition and suspension of rights of its employees. It was alleged by the petitioner that the criminal economy supported Tata Companies was worth lakhs of crores of rupees

It was 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 the respondents should be taken over by the Government to recover the loss caused to this country. That the Court should order the Government of India that the prominent names among Tatas and the Government be engraved in stone or metal in a big font with a fitting title such as 'top butchers of independent India' and display the same in a prominent public place for the benefit of posterity

The petitioner had also claimed that during the India-Pakistan War starting from August, 1965 to the Tashkent Declaration in 1966, huge crimes were committed in India by the people from within the Government which had directly or indirectly benefited Tatas. Petitioner had also stated that there were some basic conceptual problems in the structure of this country and there had been a regular supply of public money into criminal institutions like TIFR, TMC, TISS, etc.

The petitioner also claimed that in a police complaint dated 26.01.2022, he had produced the entire evidence of fraud committed by Tatas including the contract awarded by Central Public Works Department to Tata Projects Limited for the Central Vista Project including the new Parliament building and in this regard, the petitioner had prayed that whatever had been built by them in the said project, be demolished from the very foundation so that criminals have nothing to do with the highest seat of democracy in the country.

The Bench was of the view 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.”

It was further stated “Our country itself has been degraded; the judicial education institutes that have found their place in the first hundred in the world have been maligned. This Court cannot tolerate such abuse of the process of law. This Court believes that mere reprimand is not an acceptable sanction in the facts of the present case.”

The Court noted that petitioner’s affidavit filed along with the petition clarified that “the facts and circumstances stated therein are true and correct to the best of my own knowledge and belief”. Though the petitioner was informing by way of filing the affidavit that his reasonable belief and pleadings were based on true facts and existing law, the Court was constrained to pay attention to the fact that he was born in the year 1972 and he states that his fundamental right was infringed by those events which happened one century earlier.

The Court stated that it was time to recognise that the real price of the abuse of the process of law by frivolous litigations was paid by litigants who had meritorious claims. “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. ”

The Bench stated that “While the Courts are trying to do their best by reforming and modernising access to justice, it is time to also explore ways of dealing with frivolous litigation-related issues and find appropriate responses through new policies while the law reforms are taking place in our country. Frivolous litigation should also be one of the focal points in the journey of judicial reforms as it will go a long way in achieving the major goal of ensuring a speedy and effective justice system.”

The Bench stated that he general public should just get glimpses of the data of a large number of pendency of cases before the Courts and, at times, may express their anguish about such pendency. But the phenomenon of litigation explosion, which includes the large number of frivolous and vexatious litigation, may not come to the notice in the public domain.

The Bench expressed it anguish and stated that “What one needs to focus on is also the fact that it cannot only be the responding party in the litigation but it is the public at large also who is affected by such abuse of the system. While a judge will be in a dilemma as the frivolous litigant will have to be heard as the Court has inherent jurisdiction and duty to hear a person who files a writ petition arguing that he is aggrieved, and though the self-represented vexatious litigant are a minute minority, their cases cannot be summarily rejected as they have a right to be heard. In any case, judicial orders in such cases are required to prevent future abusive proceedings. While imposing costs may be one way to tackle such litigation, there may be cases where the unpaid cost orders become another ground for seeking further indulgence from the Court.”

The Bench was of the view that while there could be no assumption that petitioner’s claim in the writ petition was malicious prosecution, it was only after hearing the parties and going through its contents, which involved spending judicial time which was more often than not beyond Court hours since judges spend time reading the files before they start the hearings the next date, could be better invested for a better cause.

The Bench observed that the petitioner in the present case was an alumni of IIT, Delhi and Bombay and had rather remained associated with IIT, Delhi, for long. It was stated that he had 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.