On December 28, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, imposed a symbolic cost of ₹1,000 on numerous petitioners who filed repetitive petitions concerning matters already adjudicated. The Court emphasized that such actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, consuming valuable time and resources that could be better utilized for genuine grievances.
The petitioners sought directives for the Department of School Education, Rajasthan, to grant annual increments for services rendered within a specific period. They referenced the case of Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which had settled the controversy and was accepted for compliance by the State, thereby attaining finality. The petitioners argued that their cases should be resolved similarly.
The Court noted that following the Vijay Singh decision, thousands of identical petitions were filed seeking similar relief. In response, the Court had addressed a batch of such petitions in Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., explicitly directing individuals with the same cause of action to approach the relevant government department by submitting representations. The department was instructed to decide on these representations in light of the Court's judgment.
Despite these clear directives, petitioners continued to file identical petitions, disregarding the established procedure. Justice Dhand expressed concern over this trend, stating that it poses a serious threat to the administration of justice by clogging the judicial system with redundant cases. He remarked, "Imposition of cost is necessary... to ensure that access to justice by Courts is available to the citizens with genuine grievances." He further emphasized that the judiciary's resources should not be dissipated on cases seeking reliefs already granted, as it hampers the Court's ability to address legitimate causes.
The Court underscored the principle that litigation must conclude at some point, and allowing identical cases to proliferate undermines judicial efficiency. Justice Dhand stated, "Every litigation has to come to an end at some point of time and similar and identical litigation cannot be allowed to flourish again and again for the luxury of the litigants, who are burdening this Court unnecessarily seeking similar order again and again."
By imposing costs on the petitioners, the Court aimed to deter the filing of repetitive and groundless petitions, thereby preserving judicial resources for genuine disputes. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to judicial directives and the need for litigants to act responsibly to maintain the efficacy of the legal system.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court's ruling highlights the detrimental impact of repetitive petitions on the judicial system. By imposing costs on such petitioners, the Court seeks to uphold the integrity of the legal process, ensuring that access to justice remains available for citizens with legitimate grievances. This judgment reinforces the necessity for litigants to follow established procedures and respect the finality of judicial decisions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.