Remedy for misuse of adjudicating process

1. Supreme Court Judgments

(a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Ors Vs Pradnya Prakash
Khadekar SLP (C) NOS. 25331-33/2015, in judgment dated 01.03.2017 has held as under:-

“14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception – are choked
with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive
resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in
attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing
worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present
case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the
detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied
the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the
inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in
the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts
across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access
to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed
that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit
from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society
will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to
firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument
which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only
then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of
those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that
access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would
be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the
system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter
of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is
not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend
all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.”

(b) Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Whirlpool of India ltd. vs State of Haryana & others
SLA (Civil) no. 33172/2011, in judgment dated 12.12.2011 has held as under:-

" In last over 10 years the petitioner made vigorous efforts to get the land released by
convincing the Lok Adalat to direct the competent authority to consider and re-consider its claim.
It is a different story that finally it could not succeed. We have no doubt that the time spent by the
High Court in dealing with this case would have been utilized for examining the legitimate
grievances of other persons who have been waiting in the queue for years with the hope that
some day the Court will be able to spare time for hearing their cause. Many thousand
accused and convicts languish in jails for years together before they are found innocent by the
trial court or the appellate court. A large number of persons who are deprived of their livelihood
and property wait for decades before their cases are heard. The disposal of matrimonial cases and
the cases in which compensation is claimed under various statutes also get delayed because
substantial time of the Court is consumed in dealing with frivolous petitions like the present one.”

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. For prosecuting a frivolous

litigation before the High Court and the special leave petition before this Court, the
petitioner is saddled with cost of rupees five lacs which shall be deposited with the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. If the petitioner
fails to deposit the amount of cost, the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall
recover the same as arrears of land revenue.”

(c) Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay Civil appeal no 6454/2011,
in judgment dated 09.08.2011 has held as under:-

“37. the right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information
are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to
bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly
and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of
Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working
of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information (that is
information other than those enumerated in Section 4(1) (b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance
and emphasis are given to 47 other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information,
fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc). Indiscriminate and
impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry
information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public
authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely
affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down
with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not
be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development
and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor
should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to
do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities
spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of
discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a pubic authorities prioritizing
‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

(d) ."Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi Civil
Appeal no. 4912-4913/2011, in judgment dated 04.07.2011 has held as under:-

"33. According to the learned author, 90% of our court time and resources are
consumed in attending to uncalled for litigation, which is created only because our current
procedure and practices hold out an incentive for the wrongdoer. Those involved receive less
than full justice and there are many more in the country, in fact, a greater number than those
involved who suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, in fact, lack of awareness
and confidence in the justice system.
45. We have carefully examined the written submissions of the learned Amicus
Curiae and learned counsel for the parties. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure
that wrong-doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would
be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and
frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for
litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable
time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.

56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do

not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are
consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental
principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.”

(e) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog vs State of U.p, Civil Appeal
no. 5637/2007, in judgment dated 15.12.2007 has held as under:-

"9. Although the prayer made in the four writ applications are apparently
different, having gone through the writ applications, it became evident that the core issue in
each of the matter centres round recovery of the amount advanced to the appellants by the
bank. Evidently, orders passed at different stages of the proceedings as also new
proceedings based upon fresh calculation of interest on the principal sum had been in
question from time to time. As indicated hereinbefore, even a public interest litigation was
filed wherein also Appellant 2 was a party. Maybe that validity of Section 35-A of the U.P.
Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was one of the issues raised therein but even
the recovery proceeding was the subject-matter thereof. Such conduct of a litigant was
considered as an abuse of process of law by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court.

(f) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State of West Bengal, W.P
(CRL) no. 199/2003, in judgment dated 18.11.2003 has held as under:-

“11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated

before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for
the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts. In fostering and
developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and
whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our
opinion that while genuine litigants, with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving
properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to
death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in
incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government
or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or
unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope
of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed. The busy bodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except
for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any
other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by
wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and
frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result
of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant
situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose
faith in the administration of our judicial system.”

(g) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs M.P. Khair Industries AIR 1980
SC 946, in judgment dated 05.03.1980 has held as under:-

“The Court has power to punish as contempt any misuse of the court's process.
Thus the forging or altering of court documents and other deceits of like kind are
punishable as serious contempts. Similarly, deceiving the court or the court's officers by
deliberately suppressing a fact, or giving false facts, may be a punishable contempt.
Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance,
initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are
frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers
to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting
the taking of further proceedings without leave. Where the court, by exercising its statutory
powers, its powers under rules of court, or its inherent jurisdiction, can give an adequate remedy,
it will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court. On the other hand, where an
irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice, extending its influence
beyond the parties to the action, it may be punished as a contempt".

2. High Court Judgments

(a) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Krishan Lal Vs. State Information
Commission, Haryana and others W.P Nos. 20192/2014, in Judgment dated 16.10.2014 has held
as under:-

“However, petitioner still did not feel satisfied. That is why instant writ petition,
which is frivolous on the face of it, has been filed before this Court. Petitioner seems to be
obsessed with his rights only and is showing total ignorance towards his duties. Further,
petitioner is claiming himself to be above board in all respect, whereas he is not exercising even
the minimum possible restraint on himself, while levelling ill founded and serious allegations
against respondent authorities. In his petition, he has said more than once that respondent No.3 is
a habitual offender but he did not implead him by name, so that he may defend himself against
allegations of malafide. In view of the abovesaid factual background, it is unhesitatingly held
that petitioner is neither a bonafide litigant nor he had any cause of action to file and
maintain instant writ petition, which amounts to blatant misuse of process of law and the
same is liable to be dismissed with costs. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view
that present writ petition is not only misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, but
the same is frivolous also. Thus, it must fail. Consequently, instant writ petition is liable to be
dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs 30,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner
with the Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority Haryana, within three months
from today. Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed with costs.

(b) Hon’ble Madras High Court in P Jayasankar Vs. Chief Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S, W.P Nos. 3776 & 3778/2013, in Judgment dated 18.02.2013
has held as under:-

“In view of the above finding, henceforth, no information seeker can be allowed to
insinuate or defame the Commissioners in the guise of prosecuting their cases.

14. Under such circumstances, when specific power is vested on the Commissioner
and the Commission had proceeded against the information seeker, who had abused the Chief
Information Commissioner in the course of his proceedings, it will be open to the said
authority to disqualify a particular information seeker by passing a speaking order.

15. A similar order has been passed by this Court when a particular individual had
abused the process of law and kept on filing frivolous and irrelevant cases. A Division Bench of
this Court in Dr. S. Ching Chyang Ching Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal and The Director of Elementary Education in W.P. Nos. 18727 of 2001, 29158 of
2002 etc batch cases., has directed not to entertain any more petitions from the said person
concerned. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions,
especially in the context that the petitioner makes series of allegations against the Chief
Information Commissioner, who has also not been made as party in these Writ Petitions.
There is no case made out. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.”

(c) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Hardev Arya vs. Chief Manager (Public
Information Officer) and others, W. P. (C) No.10828 of 2012, in judgments dated 30.10.2012 has
held as under:-

“8. Here, in this case, all the authorities observed in their respective order that as per
Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005, read with Section 13 of the Banking Companies Act, 1970, no
information can be given to third party. But, time and again, the petitioner is insisting for
supplying the information to him, that too, without disclosing how he is interested in the
functioning of the said institution.
 9. It emerges from the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
purpose of obtaining such information is to misuse or threaten the institution, therefore, all
the authorities declined to give information with regard to bank account of the society. In
my opinion, such type of litigation is required to be discouraged because it is not related to public
interest nor intention of the petitioner is for any public interest

10. It is true that Parliament has enacted the Right to Information Act for transparency
in administration, so also, affairs of the State so as to strengthen the faith and trust of the people
in the governance of the country. Therefore, the Act is a vital weapon in the hands of the
citizens. At the same time, however, this may not be lost sight of that no law shall be allowed
to be wielded unlawfully so as to put it to abuse or misuse. Every statute acts and operates
within its scope and ambit, therefore, the duty rests with the Courts to discourage litigious
obduracy. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders
in this writ petition. However, conduct of the petitioner in this case is far from fair. Therefore,
this writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs 10,000/-. The amount of cost shall be deposited by the
petitioner with the Secretary, Free Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within one
month. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) shall ensure that amount of cost is deposited by the
petitioner within the stipulated time and, in the event of default, the matter shall be reported to the
Court.”

(d) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Goel vs. Public Information Officer Vat
Ward and Anr, LPA NO. 190/2012, in judgments dated 07.03.2012 has held as under:-

“1. The appellant herein appears to be a stubborn litigant who is bent upon harassing
respondent No. 2, who happens to be none other than the brother of the appellant. The respondent
No. 2's firm is registered under the Value Added Tax and is filing returns of its sales etc. with the
Sales Tax Commissioner, New Delhi. The appellant wanted certain information from the Sales
Tax Commissioner in relation to respondent No. 2 firm and therefore he moved application under
the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 asking for the following information.

4. It appears that the appellant by his conduct is proving that the observations made
by the CIC and as noticed above are factually correct which is proved by the fact that even the
order of the learned Single Judge and imposition of cost of Rs 25,000/- has not diminished
the revengeful attitude of the appellant who has chosen to file the present appeal
challenging that order.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant then referred to the earlier orders passed by
the CIC and on the basis of which it was argued that such information was supplied / ordered to
be supplied by the CIC on earlier occasion. Most probably these orders pertain to tender
documents or some other kind of information sought. Even if in some particular case information
of this nature was directed to be given, a wrong order does not become a precedent or has to be
followed. When we examine the present case on the threshold of the aforesaid provisions of Delhi
Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as well as RTI Act, we are convinced that the information is duly
protected under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and it was rightly not supplied
by the CPIO to the appellant herein.

10. We therefore are of the opinion that the present appeal is nothing but misuse
of the process of law and we dismiss the same with costs of Rs 50,000/-. We authorize
respondent No. 1 to recover cost of Rs 25,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge as well
as the cost of Rs 50,000/- imposed by us from the appellant.”

(e) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Padmawati V Harijan Sewak Sangh, CM(M) No.
449/2002, in judgment dated 06.11.2008 has held as under:-

“6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a
calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong
the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider
that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated
illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants
which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by
the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a
rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to
discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all
cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.

9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the
reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are
engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants
ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of
people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be
made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person
deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary
can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep
fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning
a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for
all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are
discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their
money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite
settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review
mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even
if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.”

(f) Hon’ble Madras High Court in Dr. S. Ching Chyang Ching Vs. The Registrar, Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal in W.P. Nos. 18727/2001, 29158 of 2002 etc. in Judgment dated
22.04.2008 has held as under:-
 “15….it is clear that the petitioner was conducting almost a raid on this Court as
well as on the Tribunal by filing case after case without any justification. Even though before
this Court he had lost the writ petition, he sought for a direction in W.P. No. 37775 of 2007 to
dispose of all his petitions pending within a time frame but in W.P. No. 18727 of 2001, he sought
for a direction to the Tribunal not to hear all his 14 final hearing and part heard cases which were
posted on 13.8.2001 except after clearing the Subsistence Allowance arrears to be paid to him at
the rate of 75% of the pay for the period from 15.9.1995 till date (ie., 24.7.2001) as ordered by
the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4096 of 2001. This kind of shifting stand of the petitioner was totally
without any justification and he cannot treat the Court of law as a play-field.

27. In view of the conduct of the petitioner as narrated above, we are constrained to
direct the Registry not to number any of the future petitions filed by the petitioner without the
leave of the Court. This direction is given with a view to save the Court's time since
considerable time had been wasted by the petitioner in filing repeated writ petitions.”

3. CIC Decisions:

(a) Central Information Commission in file no. CIC/ALDMU/A/2017/102135 decision

dated 24.04.2017 held that:-

“27. To address the problem of 'harassing & repeated questions', the Commission
recommends the respondent authority to analyze all the RTI applications filed by such
appellants, compile all the questions contained therein and indicate the information
provided against them. That consolidated information along with a background note based
on facts, avoiding unfounded allegations may also be placed on website besides sending a
copy to the applicant and the concerned Information Commission after redacting personal
information, if any. The Commission also recommends exhibiting such information in their
notice board at the entrance or at any conspicuous place in their office to prevent repetition.
The entire information about the repeated RTI questions by appellants, and the documents
given by the Public authority, etc. also may be kept in the public domain. The Commission
records its admonition against such misuse.”

(b) Central Information Commission in file no. CIC/MP/A/2014/001073 decision dated

09.03.2015 held that:-

“46. The Commission advises the appellant to use the rights given to him under
the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority
and the Commission with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the
scarce resources of the public authority. The appellant may like to use the cherished right
given in the RTI Act, 2005 in a diligent manner so as to enable the public authority to use its
time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently.”
(c) Central Information Commission in file no. CIC/DS/A/2013/001644-SA decision
dated 29.09.2014 held that:-

 “During the hearing she did not hesitate to make unreasonable remarks including

allegation against the Commission. She was rude in her behaviour and not ready to hear the
questions of the Commission to respond, instead she was shouting that even the Commission
should not find out the purpose of the RTI application to ascertain the public interest. She did
not allow the hearing to go on with her continues shouting and went on angrily abusing till she
left the hearing room. No information seeker can be allowed to insinuate or defame the
Commissioners in guise of prosecuting their cases. The Commission prefers to admonish her
for her reckless and defamatory remarks during hearing and warns her not to repeat the same and
any repetition of such conduct would invite the disqualification as held by the Madras High
Court in above referred case, besides reserving the right to proceed against her in both civil
and criminal proceedings. The Commission advises the appellant not to engage such
irresponsible people to represent.”

(d) Central Information Commission in file no. CIC/OK/A/2006/00461 decision dated

18.02.2009 held that:-

“The Commission has rejected a number of applications on the ground that

intemperate, abusing and unparliamentary language has been used in the communications of
the Appellant. This case clearly falls into that category. However, the Commission has taken a
lenient view, but it is made clear that while abiding with the Commission’s orders regarding
points 1 & 3 above, the Respondents may yet come to the Commission in case the Appellant
continues to use objectionable language and the Commission may then adjudicate on whether the
case should be dismissed or be continued.”
 1. Reference order on pre-page

2. Corrected copy of Legal issues placed opposite for kind perusal.

(Rajat Anand)
Legal Consultant

JS (Law)

AS

Secy

CIC