Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court imposed a hefty cost of ₹1,00,000 on a petitioner for indulging in frivolous litigation and forum shopping over 11 years, including more than 10 attempts before the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.  

• A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal observed that while access to courts is a cornerstone of democracy, it must be exercised responsibly.  
• The Court condemned the petitioner for abusing the judicial process, filing meritless pleas, and wasting judicial resources, which hinder the dispensation of justice to others. 

What was the Background of Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr ? 

• Pandurang Vithal Kevne has been employed as an Examiner with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) since 1977. 
• In December 1997, BSNL issued him a charge sheet for misconduct due to frequent and prolonged unauthorized absences from duty without prior permission or intimation. 
• Following a departmental inquiry, Kevne was found guilty and removed from service effective 14th July 2000. 
• A police investigation initiated by BSNL revealed that Kevne was running a business in his wife's name at his native place while being employed with BSNL. 
• When Kevne claimed illness as a defense, BSNL directed him to undergo a medical examination, He was declared medically fit to resume duty on 6th October 1997. 
• Despite being declared fit, Kevne did not report to work until 27th January 1998, after which he took two days of leave and remained absent again for two months. 
• After his dismissal, Kevne's statutory appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, following which he raised an industrial dispute that was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in Mumbai. 
• The CGIT passed its final award on 22nd December 2006, upholding Kevne's removal from service, noting that his absences qualified as misconduct as they were "habitual" and without prior permission. 
• This initiated a long series of legal proceedings by Kevne, including multiple appeals, review petitions, and complaints to various authorities, spanning over two decades. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that this case represents an example of misuse and abuse of the judicial process, where the petitioner, driven by his sense of grievance, has embarked on a relentless and frivolous litigation spree. 
• The Court states that while the right to access courts is a cornerstone of democracy, it is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly, noting that forum shopping, repetitive pleadings, and deliberate delays erode the foundation of the legal system. 
• The Court expressed concern that the petitioner's persistent litigation has resulted in choking the court's dockets, noting that such unscrupulous litigation hinders the efficient administration of justice for genuine claims. 
• The Court referenced its earlier judgment in Subrata Roy Sahara vs Union of India, highlighting how the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation that causes anxiety and restlessness to innocent parties on the other side. 
• The Court observed that no legal system can sustain a scenario where a person repeatedly raises the same issue after its resolution at the highest level, as it results in complete wastage of judicial time. 

Central Government Industrial Tribunal 

• Legal Foundation 
  • Established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
  • Additional powers granted through Finance Act, 2017 for EPF&MP Act appeals 
• Geographical Coverage 
  • Total of 22 tribunals across India 
  • Strategic distribution with multiple courts in major industrial centers 
  • Two courts function as National Tribunals (Mumbai No.1 and Kolkata) 
• Leadership Structure 
  • Presiding Officers are selected from:  
    • Serving or retired High Court judges 
    • Serving or retired District/Additional District judges 
  • National Industrial Tribunals specifically headed by High Court judges 
• Core Objectives 
  • Maintain industrial peace and harmony 
  • Ensure quick disposal of industrial disputes 
  • Prevent industrial growth hindrance due to unrest 
  • Handle increasing worker grievances due to:  
    • Greater awareness of labor rights 
    • Technological restructuring leading to retrenchment 
    • Workforce surplus declarations 
• Administrative Structure 
  • Funding allocated for:  
    • Presiding Officers' salaries 
    • Staff salaries 
    • Administrative expenses 
    • Management of all 22 tribunals 

What is Frivolous Litigation? 

• Frivolous litigation refers to situations where a party makes needless, baseless, or malicious legal claims in their statements without merit.  
• Frivolous litigation occurs when a case lacks any reasonable basis in law or fact, and is typically filed to harass defendants, force settlements, or generate media attention, causing defendants to expend unnecessary time, energy, and resources. 
• Unlike vexatious litigation (which involves repeatedly filing similar cases), a frivolous case can be identified by its complete lack of merit and clear intention to either harass the defendant or abuse the court process, even if filed only once. 
• The problem of frivolous litigation significantly contributes to case backlogs in Indian courts, with such cases often stealing valuable court time and causing unjust deviation from genuine pending litigation, especially problematic during post-pandemic times. 
• While some suggest increasing court fees to deter frivolous cases, the Supreme Court has noted this approach may also discourage legitimate plaintiffs, suggesting instead that stronger legal consequences and careful screening at the "issue notice" stage might be more effective solutions. 
• International jurisdictions like the UK and New Zealand have specific provisions to strike down frivolous pleadings, while the US employs a case evaluation system to identify and discourage such litigation early in the process. 

What is the Difference between Frivolous and Vexatious? 

• Vexatious litigation specifically refers to the habitual or persistent filing of cases on issues that have already been decided whether against the same parties, their successors, or different parties. 
• Frivolous litigation, in contrast, doesn't require persistent filing - a single case can be considered frivolous if it has no merit and is intended to harass the defendant or abuse court process, as clarified by the 192nd Law Commission Report. 
• While the Bengal Regulation of 1795 suggested increasing court fees to curb frivolous cases, Lord Macaulay argued this approach was flawed as it would deter both dishonest and honest plaintiffs alike, without actually addressing the underlying issue of meritless claims. 
• The Law Commission's view states that both types of problematic litigation should be "nipped in the first possible instance" to save court time, but they require different approaches due to their distinct nature. 

Case Law  

• Charu Kishor Mehta v. Prakash Patel (2022) 
  • The petitioner had defaulted on a massive bank loan of Rs. 277 crores, and despite signing a settlement deed with Phoenix A.R.C. Pvt. Ltd., continued to obstruct recovery proceedings through multiple legal filings. 
  • The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions that the civil court had no jurisdiction in this matter under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as these issues fell under the purview of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 
  • The Court found the petitioner's conduct to be an abuse of the legal process through repeated frivolous litigation, particularly after signing the settlement deed, and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 while dismissing the Special Leave Petition.