Rajasthan HC rejects Bail to REET Paper Leak Accused Ram Kripal Meena
Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict on Muslim Parties' Plea Against Varanasi Court Order
Jharkhand HC Announces 55 Assistant Positions in Ranchi; Online Applications Now Open!
Sister-in-Law's Frequent Visits Insufficient to Establish Residence in DV Case : Bombay HC
P&H HC Grants Interim Bail to Eight-Month Pregnant Woman Accused in Murder Case, Citing Health Risks to Mother and Unborn Child
Kerala HC Denies 'Non-Creamy Layer' Certification Plea, Citing Ineligibility Based on Hereditary Occupation Criteria
ED Shifts Sameer Wankhede's Money Laundering Case to Delhi, Informs Bombay HC
J& H HC Emphasizes Due Process, Slams Overuse of Preventive Detention under PSA
Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Abhijit Majumder Over Periyar Remarks
Calcutta HC Takes Suo Motu Action on Alleged Sexual Assault and Land Transfer in Sandeshkhali
Litigants Share 75% Responsibility for Judicial Delays : Allahabad HC

Litigants Share 75% Responsibility for Judicial Delays : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized that although the judicial system is often criticized for delays, a significant portion of the responsibility, approximately 75%, lies with the litigants themselves. 

Justice JJ Munir's bench underscored that state litigants, in particular, exhibit negligence in legal proceedings. The court highlighted that this negligence often stems from a perception held by state litigants that the outcome of the case will not personally affect them. This observation sheds light on the need for all litigants, including governmental entities, to take their legal responsibilities seriously and actively participate in the judicial process.

The court pointed out the prevalent culture among litigants who are officials of the state, characterized by a nonchalant attitude towards court proceedings. These officials often express sentiments suggesting that they are unaffected by the outcomes of the legal process.

Such an attitude reflects a concerning disregard for the importance of judicial proceedings and highlights the need for a shift towards greater accountability and engagement in the legal process.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that whenever there is even a slight attempt by the court to enforce due process, official litigants often react by challenging and objecting to the court's orders, frequently resorting to appellate mechanisms. This pattern of behavior suggests a tendency among official litigants to resist accountability and delay the legal process, further exacerbating the issue of judicial backlog. Such actions undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system and emphasize the need for a more cooperative approach from all parties involved in legal proceedings.

These observations were made in the context of a writ petition filed seeking direction to quash an order issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, which approved the suspension of the writ petitioner. In this specific case, the court's remarks shed light on broader issues within the legal system, particularly regarding the conduct of official litigants and their approach to judicial proceedings.

In December 2023, the government advocate sought adjournment on three separate occasions, citing the need for additional time to obtain instructions from the official respondents involved in the case. This repeated request for adjournment reflects the challenges often faced in ensuring timely progress in legal proceedings, particularly when governmental entities are involved.

Such delays can contribute to the prolongation of cases and increase the burden on the judicial system.

Subsequently, in early January of this year, the counsel representing the respondents once again requested a two-week extension to file the counter affidavit. However, despite this extension, the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, failed to submit the counter affidavit until April 9, 2024. This delay in fulfilling procedural obligations further contributes to the overall sluggishness of the legal process and highlights the need for all parties involved to adhere to timelines and ensure timely progression of cases.

On that date, the court directed the counsel to file the counter affidavit in accordance with the court's previous order on or before April 15. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of compliance by summoning the counsel to appear in person should there be any failure to adhere to the court's directive. This firm stance taken by the court underscores the significance of timely and diligent adherence to court orders, thereby ensuring the expeditious resolution of the legal matter at hand.

On April 15, the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time and it was adjourned to April 25, 2024.

Case Title: Dr. Uma Shankar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy