'Duty to Transcend Time Constraints': SC for Finding Solution to Pendency of Appeals

The Supreme Court has highlighted the massive pendency of appeals in court as it heard an appeal of a person denied appointment as a school teacher back in 2017 "due to illegal and arbitrary action of not computing marks for his postgraduate degree". Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court invoked 11th century epic to underline the true grit of a petitioner who fought a draining legal battle challenging an arbitrary decision, which denied him appointment as a teacher.

The apex court stressed it is distressing that appeals of more than two decades are awaiting consideration, and added, “we must and we will find a solution to this problem”. The petitioner Manoj Kumar was denied appointment as a primary school teacher due to illegal and arbitrary action of not computing marks for his postgraduate degree. The apex court directed the Union government to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation to him.

A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta said: “In the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary. Our duty is to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action. By taking the first step, the primary purpose and object of public law proceedings will be subserved”.

“We appreciate the spirit of the appellant who has steadfastly contested his case like the legendary Vikram (Against Betaal, in the famous Vetalapancavimsati, the original being the Kathasaritsagara work of the 11th Century by Somadeva) from the year 2017 when he was illegally denied the appointment by the executive order dated May 22, 2017”, said the bench.

Setting aside the institute's order, as illegal and arbitrary, the bench, in a judgment delivered on February 20, said: “We direct the institute (Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped ) to pay an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation. This amount shall be paid to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of this order”.

Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said: “We must formulate an appropriate system for preserving the rights of the parties till the final determination takes place. In the alternative, we may also formulate a reasonable equivalent for restitution of the wrongful action”.

The bench noted that the writ petition was filed against the action of the respondent denying appointment on May 22, 2017, which was decided by the single judge of the high court on January 24, 2018 and the division bench decided it on October 16, 2018. "Then the case was carried to this court in the year 2019 and we are deciding it in 2024. The delay in this case is not unusual, we see several such cases when our final hearing board moves. Appeals of more than two decades are awaiting consideration. It is distressing but certainly not beyond us. We must and we will find a solution to this problem," said Justice Narasimha.

Noting that the school itself was closed last year, the bench said, "In this situation, we must consider an alternative restitutory measure in the form of monetary compensation".

The bench noted that the temporal gap between the impugned illegal or arbitrary action and their subsequent adjudication by the courts introduces complexities in the provision of restitution. “As time elapses, the status of persons, possession, and promises undergoes transformation, directly influencing the nature of relief that may be formulated and granted”, said the bench.

Justice Narasimha said the inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between the illegal impugned action and restitution is certainly not rooted in deficiencies within the law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process. “The protracted timeline spanning from the filing of a writ petition, service of notice, filing of counter affidavits, final hearing, and then the eventual delivery of judgment, coupled with subsequent appellate procedures, exacerbates delays”, said the bench.

The apex court set aside the Delhi High Court's division and single bench judgments, which denied any relief to Kumar. Justice Narasimha said: “We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power”.

“It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice”, said justice Narasimha.

The bench said this is an unfortunate situation where the court finds that the action of the respondent was arbitrary, but the consequential remedy cannot be given due to subsequent developments. “One stark reality of the situation is the time that has passed between the order of 2018 impugned herein and the judgment that we pronounce in 2024," the bench pointed out.

Read More