Supreme Court of India imposed Rs.25,000 costs on the Union government and dismissed its appeal against relief granted to a CISF constable by the High Court. The Bench criticised unnecessary litigation, questioning the Centre’s decision to approach the apex court.
The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000 on the Union government and dismissed its appeal challenging relief granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to a CISF constable who had been removed from service for 11 days of alleged unauthorised absence.
A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan criticized the Union for pursuing the appeal despite the High Court’s decision, calling the litigation unnecessary and a contributor to court backlog.
The Bench questioned the rationale behind the Union’s move to the Supreme Court.
Justice Nagarathna observed,
“We keep shouting pendency, pendency. Who is the biggest litigant? High court granted him relief. Instead of giving opinion that you will not go to Supreme Court, you still proceed against him. We do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. We fail to understand as to why the Union of India and others have approached this Court,”
The case stemmed from disciplinary proceedings against the CISF constable, who had been dismissed over claims of unauthorised absence and alleged involvement in facilitating a woman’s elopement with his brother.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court found that the period of absence overlapped with sanctioned medical leave and held that the elopement allegation did not constitute misconduct; it therefore set aside the punishment orders.
Despite that ruling, the Union government appealed to the Supreme Court. During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna tied this matter to the broader problem of excessive government litigation feeding judicial backlog.
Referring to comments she recently made at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s national conference on judicial governance, she stressed that those remarks were intended seriously.
She said,
“We have taken the SCBA conference very seriously. It was not just to go to some resort and come back. We made preparations, we did homework. We spoke. Not to forget,”
At that conference last month, Justice Nagarathna had also remarked,
“Government is the single largest litigator, we are carrying the burden of the evasiveness of the government in the judicial system. The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation.”
Case Title: Union of India vs. Sukhwinder Singh