SC: Frivolous Proceedings Directly Impinge On The Rule Of Law, Affects Cases Crying For Justice

The Supreme Court pointed out that frivolous and vexatious proceedings directly impinge on the rule of law. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and K V Viswanathan said even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has said that frivolous and vexatious proceedings directly impinge on the rule of law, as they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice.

A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly.

"The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake that faith and confidence," said Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgment, delivered on Monday, on behalf of the bench.

Justice Viswanathan made several observations in a postscript regarding frivolous proceedings while setting aside a 2021 judgment of the Madras High Court directing further investigation in a murder case of 2013.

Justice Viswanathan said while it is true that delay in trial will cede to the pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not exist. He said the present case is a classic example of the latter category.

The bench said the victims of crime, the accused, and the society at large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within a reasonable time.

"It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of the rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous to the rule of law in the long term”, it said.

The bench said the legal profession has an important role to play in the process and any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court.

"We are constrained to observe this because of late we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever," said the bench.

The bench said reading some of the averments therein, we are left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending their signatures.

"These misadventures directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice," said Justice Viswanathan.

"It is time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics," said Justice Viswanathan.

The bench said if we have desisted from such a course in this case, it is only because the High Court allowed the petition and it is here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the petition for further investigation.

The bench, while acting on an appeal filed by accused K Vadivel, made it clear that further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a chargesheet and the very applicant for further investigation, the wife of the deceased, K Shanthi has not whispered about anything new in her evidence.

Justice Viswanathan said there must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that the ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation.

The apex court said the High Court did not give valid justification for further investigation, long after the final arguments were concluded on October 19, 2019, in the trial court. The additional chargesheet, after the High Court’s order, was prepared on December 2, 2021.

"The FIR was filed on March 31, 2013, and the charge sheet on July 11, 2013. At the fag end of the trial in October 2019, on the eve of the final arguments, the first round of applications under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed, which culminated in its dismissal in December, 2019," noted the bench.

The bench said soon thereafter in January 2020, virtually the same grounds which had been rejected earlier were rehashed in the form of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC on behalf of the wife of the deceased.

"The state, which had hitherto opposed all the applications up to the High Court, turned turtle and stoutly supported the wife of the deceased in this court without offering any tenable justification as to how the earlier investigation which had arrayed eight accused for trial lacked credibility," the bench said.

"We further direct that, in view of the dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet dated 02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. We direct that after hearing arguments of parties afresh, the trial should be concluded and judgment pronounced within eight weeks from today," said the apex court.

Read More