Lok Sabha Question No. 2160 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2023-12-15
Subject: Recovery of Litigation Expenses on Filing False Cases
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Poonam (Mahajan) Vajendla Rao

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

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2160

## TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 15 th  DECEMBER, 2023

## Recovery of Litigation Expenses on Filing False Cases

## 2160. SHRIMATI POONAM MAHAJAN:

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

- (a)  whether  the  Government  proposes  to  adopt  strict  measures  like recovery of litigation expenses and doubling the fine/punishment against the persons who file false cases repeatedly in order to bring transparency in the judicial system of the country;
- (b)  if so, the details thereof;

(c)whether the Government proposes to make provision for imprisonment/punishment  in  case  of  non-payment  of  fine  by  such persons; and

- (d) if  so,  the  time  by  which  the  decision  in  this  regard  is  likely  to  be finalised?

## ANSWER

## MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDANT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE; MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE (SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)

- (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  by  errant  litigants.  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 'b le  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 'b le  Supreme  Court  in  Subrata  Roy  Sahara  vs.  Union  of India  &Ors.(20 14)  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 fau lt 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  Court  also  upheld  the  order  of  Bombay  High  Court imposing 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.