Govt spent over Rs 400 crore in 10 years to contest court cases
New Delhi: The government has spent more than Rs 400 crore to contest court cases during the past 10 years, official data showed.
The central government's Rs 66 crore expenditure on litigations in the 2023-24 financial year was over Rs 9 crore higher than the previous fiscal.
The amount incurred on litigations has gone up since 2014-15, barring two fiscals when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, according to data shared by the government with the Lok Sabha in response to a question in the ongoing Budget session.
In 2014-15, the cost incurred on litigations stood at Rs 26.64 crore while the expenditure for 2015-16 was Rs 37.43 crore.
Between the 2014-15 and the 2023-24 financial years, the government spent more than Rs 409 crore on litigations.
Separately, the law ministry had earlier this month told the Rajya Sabha that the central government is a party in nearly seven lakh cases pending across courts, with the Finance Ministry alone being one of the litigants in nearly two lakh cases.
Citing data available on Legal Information Management & Briefing System (LIMBS), Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said, "There are about seven lakh cases pending where the Government of India is a party. Out of these, in about 1.9 lakh cases the Ministry of Finance is mentioned as a party."
The government is working on a national litigation policy that seeks to expedite the resolution of pending cases. A draft of the proposed policy will go before the Union Cabinet for a final call.
The policy has been drafted and redrafted for several years, with successive governments deliberating on its contours.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
