In a recent judgment, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed an appeal filed by the State due to an inordinate and unexplained delay of 230 days. The court criticized the government's lackadaisical approach in handling legal matters, emphasizing that procedural inefficiencies cannot justify such delays.
The case originated from a judgment dated December 29, 2023, against which the State sought to appeal. However, the process of obtaining the necessary sanction to file the appeal took an astonishing seven months, with the sanction granted on July 3, 2024. Following this, an additional 52 days elapsed before the appeal was filed on September 4, 2024, resulting in a total delay of 230 days. The State's application for condonation of this delay lacked any convincing explanation for these prolonged periods.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary expressed their dissatisfaction with the State's approach, noting that the application for condonation of delay was filed in a cavalier manner, merely as a routine formality. The court highlighted the State's supine indifference, despite having substantial manpower and machinery at its disposal. The judges were particularly perturbed by the seven-month period taken to obtain the sanction and the subsequent 52-day delay in filing the appeal, especially when no reasons were provided to justify these delays.
The court underscored that the State is expected to act with diligence and commitment in its functioning. While courts may exhibit leniency in condoning delays for government entities due to their complex bureaucratic processes, this leniency is not absolute. The State does not possess a vested right to file appeals at a belated stage without adequately explaining the reasons for the delay. The court emphasized that each day's delay must be satisfactorily explained to warrant condonation.
In its observations, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors., where a cost of ₹1 lakh was imposed on the State for similar delays. The Supreme Court had directed senior government officials to personally ensure the timely filing of appeals, highlighting the judiciary's growing impatience with bureaucratic inefficiencies leading to procedural delays.
The High Court's decision in this case serves as a stern reminder to government departments about the importance of adhering to procedural timelines. It reinforces the principle that the right to appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised within the framework of the law. Delays caused by administrative inefficiencies or procedural lapses cannot be excused without satisfactory explanations. The judgment also reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done promptly, without being hindered by avoidable delays.
This ruling is expected to have broader implications for how government departments handle legal matters, particularly in terms of streamlining processes to avoid unnecessary delays. It emphasizes the need for accountability and efficiency within the administrative machinery to uphold the rule of law and ensure timely justice.
In conclusion, the High Court's dismissal of the State's appeal due to an unexplained 230-day delay highlights the judiciary's intolerance for procedural laxity. It sends a clear message to government entities about the necessity of diligence and promptness in legal proceedings, reinforcing that the right to appeal must be exercised responsibly and within the prescribed legal timelines.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.