Allahabad High Court: Litigants, State Officials Behind 75% of Judicial Delays
Allahabad High Court finds litigants, State officials accountable for 75% of judicial delays, emphasizing timely conduct in court proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court recently highlighted that the blame for delays in court cases often falls on the judicial system, but in reality, litigants and State officials are primarily responsible for such delays.
Justice JJ Munir emphasized that the attitude of litigants, especially government officials, significantly contributes to delays in the adjudication process. He noted, "There is a wholesome blame placed on the judicial system for delays. The litigants are 75% of the contributors who seek adjournments or otherwise fail to fulfill their part in the process."
The court particularly criticized government officials involved in litigation, stating that they often show negligence because they perceive that the outcome of a case won't affect them personally. "There is a culture rife amongst the litigants who are officials of the State to be nonchalant about the process of Court. They are often heard to say that whatever happens how does it affect them," remarked the Court.
The Court observed that official litigants tend to object to court orders aimed at ensuring the case proceeds as scheduled, rather than against the orders themselves. Such objections often involve appellate mechanisms, causing further delays in the proceedings.
These remarks were made in a case challenging the approval of a suspension order by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. Despite the Court's earlier directive to the State to respond to the petition, the State failed to do so, even after repeated opportunities.
In response to this negligence, the Court directed the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, to file a response by April 15. Although the matter couldn't be heard on April 15 due to time constraints, it is scheduled for April 25.
While the High Court website indicates that the counter affidavit has now been filed, the Court had warned of action against the officer in case of non-compliance. It also stated that the affidavit would be accepted only upon payment of costs, which would be personally recovered from the officer.
Advocates Prabhakar Awasthi and Sanjay Kumar Yadav represented the petitioner, while Advocate Gopal Ji Rai represented one of the respondents.
