Why in news?
- The Association Service of Regulation and Equity in India has as of late endorsed the Public Prosecution Strategy, meaning to address the huge excess of legitimate cases in which the public authority is a party.
- The purpose of the National Litigation Policy, which is awaiting Cabinet approval, is to lessen the burden placed on the judiciary and streamline government litigation procedures.
- This blog dives away from plain sight, targets, and ramifications of the Public Prosecution Strategy, investigating its expected effect on the Indian overall set of laws.
Background of the National Litigation Policy
The Litigation Backlog
- India faces a daunting challenge with approximately 50 million legal cases pending across various levels of the judiciary.
- The government, as the country’s largest litigant, is responsible for a substantial portion of these cases.
- For instance, it accounts for 73% of all cases admitted by the Supreme Court.
- This overwhelming presence of the government in litigation not only clogs the judicial system but also delays justice for many citizens.
Historical Context
- The National Litigation Policy was initially launched in 2010 with the objective of transforming the government into a more responsible litigant. However, the policy was not effectively implemented.
- Recognizing the need for reform, the NDA government revived the plan in 2015. Despite discussions and proposals, it remained under consideration until recently.
- The policy had been a part of the BJP’s 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto, and its approval by the Union Law Minister marks a significant step towards its realization.
Objectives of the National Litigation Policy
Transforming Government Litigation
- The primary aim of the National Litigation Policy is to transform the government into an efficient and responsible litigant. This involves several key aspects:
- Efficient Litigation Management: Ensuring that government litigation is managed and conducted in a cohesive, coordinated, and time-bound manner. This means focusing on core issues and addressing them directly, rather than pursuing unnecessary or weak cases.
- Responsible Litigation Practices: Adopting practices that emphasize truthfulness and transparency. This includes avoiding false pleas, not taking technical points needlessly, and ensuring that all relevant facts and documents are presented in court.
Prioritization and Review
- The policy suggests prioritizing pending cases involving the government to enable quicker disposal.
- It also proposes a monitoring and review mechanism to sensitize government departments about the importance of timely and effective litigation management.
- By doing so, the policy aims to reduce delays and prevent neglect of significant cases.
Features of the National Litigation Policy
Efficient Litigant Principles
- An efficient litigant is characterized by:
- Competent Representation: The government must be represented by competent and sensitive legal professionals who can effectively manage litigation.
- Core Issue Focus: Concentrating on the central issues of the litigation to resolve cases effectively and efficiently.
- Cohesive Management: Conducting litigation in a coordinated manner, ensuring that cases are handled promptly and judiciously.
- Selective Pursuit: Ensuring that strong cases are pursued vigorously while weak cases are dropped to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Responsible Litigant Principles
- A responsible litigant adheres to:
- Truthfulness: Avoiding false pleas and technical objections that do not serve the core issues of the case.
- Transparency: Ensuring that all relevant facts and documents are presented before the court without any attempt to mislead.
- Welfare Focus: Giving priority to cases involving welfare legislation, social reform, and the rights of weaker sections.
Monitoring and Review Mechanism
- The policy proposes a systematic review of pending cases to identify and expedite those that can be quickly resolved. This involves:
- Regular Monitoring: Keeping track of significant cases to ensure timely progress.
- Case Sensitization: Making government departments aware of the importance of particular cases and the need for swift action.
- Avoiding Delays: Addressing delays and preventing neglect in litigation by implementing efficient processes and accountability measures.
Significance of the National Litigation Policy
Reducing the Judicial Burden
- One of the critical objectives of the National Litigation Policy is to reduce the volume of government litigation in courts.
- By doing so, valuable court time can be redirected towards resolving other pending cases.
- This is crucial for achieving the goals outlined in the National Mission for Justice Delivery & Legal Reforms, which aims to reduce the average pendency time of cases from 15 years to 3 years.
Enhancing Government Accountability
- The policy underscores the government’s responsibility to protect citizens’ rights and uphold fundamental rights.
- By promoting efficient and responsible litigation practices, the government can enhance its accountability and ensure that its legal actions align with the principles of justice and fairness.
Improving Legal Outcomes
- By focusing on core issues and avoiding unnecessary litigation, the government can improve the overall quality of legal outcomes.
- This means that cases with merit are more likely to be resolved in favor of the government, while those without merit are swiftly dropped, reducing the strain on the judicial system and enhancing the credibility of government litigation.
Promoting Justice and Fairness
- The policy’s emphasis on responsible litigant principles, such as truthfulness and transparency, promotes a culture of justice and fairness.
- This approach not only benefits the government but also ensures that citizens receive timely and equitable legal outcomes.
Challenges and Implementation
Overcoming Bureaucratic Hurdles
- Implementing the National Litigation Policy effectively will require overcoming several bureaucratic challenges.
- This includes ensuring that government departments adhere to the principles outlined in the policy and that legal professionals representing the government are adequately trained and equipped to handle cases efficiently.
Ensuring Consistent Application
- For the policy to be successful, it must be applied consistently across all levels of government litigation. This means creating a robust framework for monitoring and evaluating the policy’s implementation and addressing any gaps or inconsistencies that may arise.
Encouraging Cultural Change
- Transforming the government’s approach to litigation will require a cultural shift within government agencies and departments.
- This involves fostering a mindset that values efficient and responsible litigation practices and prioritizes the swift and fair resolution of cases.
Conclusion
- The National Litigation Policy is a significant step toward increasing the responsibility and effectiveness of Indian government litigation.
- The policy aims to lessen the burden placed on the judiciary and improve the quality of legal outcomes by addressing the backlog of pending cases and encouraging best practices in litigation.
- The country’s overall objectives of justice delivery and legal reform will depend on the policy’s successful implementation while it is awaiting Cabinet approval.
People also ask
Q1: What is the National Litigation Policy?
Ans: India’s Union Ministry of Law and Justice launched the National Litigation Policy to reduce the number of government-related court cases pending. By adopting procedures that streamline litigation procedures, guarantee competent representation, and concentrate on the fundamental issues involved in legal cases, the policy aims to transform the government into an effective and accountable litigant.
Q2 : The National Litigation Policy was introduced for what reason?
Ans: The strategy was acquainted with address the mind-boggling number of forthcoming legitimate cases in which the public authority is a party. Currently, the government is in charge of roughly 73% of all Supreme Court cases, significantly increasing the judicial backlog. The arrangement means to decrease this weight by advancing proficient suit the executives and mindful practices.
