Lok Sabha Question No. 93 (STARRED), answered on 2022-07-22
Subject: Action against Filing False Cases
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Gopal Chinayya Shetty

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

## LOK SABHA

## STARRED QUESTION NO. †*93

## TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 nd  JULY, 2022

## Action against Filing False Cases

## †*93.  SHRI GOPAL CHINNAYA SHETTY:

Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(a)  whether  the  Government  proposes  to  take  strict  action  against  persons  who  file false  cases  such  as  recovery  of  entire  legal  expenses,  doubling  of  the  amount/ imprisonment in case of repetition of offence, etc. so as to bring transparency in the judicial system of the country;

- (b) if so, the details thereof;

(c) whether the Government proposes to bring in provision of jail or imprisonment in case of failure to pay the penalty by such persons; and

(d) whether the Government has taken any steps to ensure that the persons filing cases should furnish full details of their expenses and if so, the details thereof?

## ANSWER

## MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE

## (SHRI KIREN RIJIJU)

(a) to (d) : A statement is laid on the table of the House.

## Statement referred to in reply of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. †*93 raised by Shri Gopal Chinnaya Shetty, Hon'ble MP regarding 'Action against Filing False Cases':

(a) to (d):  No, Sir. Legal and Constitutional remedies are guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution. Approaching courts for redressal is a right of all citizens and especially the marginalised, who are fighting to get justice.

As per the contentions of the parties in a case, it is for  the Court to decide whether the case/petition/suit is maintainable or not and what relief is admissible or otherwise depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, there are certain laws to deal with the frivolous  litigations.  Under  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  1908,  section  35A  provides  for payment of costs by way of compensation in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences. Also, under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the court is empowered to direct  payment  of  compensation  to  the  accused,  if  the  court  considers  that  there  is  no reasonable ground for making the accusation. Further, as per section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intentto injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall alsobe liable to fine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have also issued certain directions  from  time  to  time  through  their  orders/judgements  to  keep  a  check  on  frivolous litigation/false claims. The courts are also concerned that its process are not abused by any persons,  organisations  and  institutions  by  filing  frivolous  petitions  in  the  name  of  PILs. Further, Public-interest litigation is a rule of declared law by the courts of record. However, the person (or entity) filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition serves the public interest and is not a frivolous lawsuit brought for monetary gain.

The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402, had held that in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

- (a) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
- (b) Instead  of  every  individual  judge  devising  his  own  procedure  for  dealing  with  the public  interest  litigation,  it  would  be  appropriate  for  each  High  Court  to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.
- (c) The  courts should  prima  facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

- (d) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
- (e) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
- (f) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
- (g) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
- (h) The  court  should  also  ensure  that  the  petitions  filed  by  busybodies  for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India & Ors.(2014) 8 SCC  470, has  held  that  ' The  Indian  judicial  system  is  grossly  afflicted,  with  frivolous litigation.  Ways  and  means  need  to  be  evolved,  to  deter  litigants  from  their  compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. '

Recently, the Supreme Court, in ' Charu Kishor Mehta vs. Prakash Patel & Ors., SLP(c) No. 11030 /2022vide order  dated  22.06.2022  confirmed  the  Order  dated  13.06.2022  of  the Bombay High Court, and held that  filing  frivolous  cases  in  a  court  of  law  is  an  abuse  of process of law. The Courtalso upheld the order of Bombay High Courtimposing the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case H. S. Bedi vs. NHAI (MANU/DE/0154/2016) has issued a set of guidelines to the lower courts for initiating prosecution under Section 209 of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  in  appropriate  cases.  The  High  Court  said  that  the  reluctance  of courts to take action encourages litigants to make false averments. As stated above, section 209  of  the  IPC  provides  for  imprisonment  upto  two  years'  and  fine  for  the  offence  of fraudulently or dishonestly making a false claim in the court with the intent to injure or annoy any person.

Since Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have been issuing guidelines from time to time to put a check on the false and frivolous litigation, no further actions at the level of the Central Government is contemplatedat this stage.