The root cause of litigation: Executive and statutory failure

Thecurrent discourse on judicial efficacy often centres on the staggering pendency of cases a crucial metric of the judicial system's health. However, as Chief Justice Surya Kant's adoption of the "trickle-down effect" strategy highlights, while the judiciary can implement sophisticated internal mechanisms to manage the overwhelming backlog, the fundamental solution to reducing the burden on the courts lies not just in disposal but in preventing the genesis of litigation itself. This necessitates a critical analysis of the executive and statutory authorities, whose arbitrary and often dishonest functioning serves as the primary root cause for the majority of cases entering the judicial pipeline.

The litigious role of the State

It is an established and regrettable fact that the Government is the single largest litigant in the nation. It is involved in a substantial portion of all cases, whether through its police, revenue, or taxation departments. This volume is not a mere accident of governance but a direct consequence of systemic failures within the Executive machinery.

When executive authorities and statutory bodies which are entrusted with administering laws, collecting revenue, and providing public services fail to operate with honesty, transparency, and due application of mind, the aggrieved citizen is left with no option but to seek redressal from the courts. The judiciary, therefore, becomes a court of last resort, forced to intervene not just in disputes between private parties, but overwhelmingly in disputes between the Citizen and the State.

Arbitrary functioning and the lack of accountability

Despite widespread knowledge and public witnessing of the arbitrary manner in which these authorities function, concrete, remedial steps to enforce accountability at the executive level remain conspicuously absent.

1. Poor quality of executive orders:Many decisions passed by executive and quasi-judicial statutory authorities pertaining to land disputes, tax assessments, environmental clearances, and public employment are poorly reasoned, lack objectivity, or are manifestly unjust. These flawed orders create an immediate, compelling cause for litigation, as affected parties are obligated to challenge them to protect their fundamental rights and interests. The financial and human cost of such poor governance is immediately shifted to the judicial system.

2. Systemic abuse and corruption:The deep-seated issues of abuse and corruption act as an accelerant to litigation. The phenomenon of police personnel involving themselves in settling private civil disputes a function entirely outside their legal mandate is a prime example.

This often occurs at the local level where influence and financial incentives dictate action, rather than adherence to the rule of law. Furthermore, the practice of officials paying huge amounts to higher-ups for postings at "potential places" (i.e., areas of commercial activity or high revenue) institutionalizes corruption. These officials, having financially invested in their positions, are then incentivized to misuse their authority to recover their investment, leading to biased, arbitrary, or illegal actions that directly trigger litigation.

The inadequacy of existing mechanisms

While anti-corruption legislation, such as the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Acts, exists, it has proven unable to curtail the pervasive abuse and corruption that fuels this litigation engine. The focus of these acts often leans towards post-facto prosecution, which is slow and resource intensive, rather than proactive, structural reform to ensure administrative honesty and competence. The machinery intended to prevent corruption is frequently bogged down by procedural hurdles or undermined by the very officials it is meant to oversee.

The imperative for a special accountability machinery

There has to be a special machinery constituted to tackle this menace. This proposed mechanism must go beyond mere prosecution and focus on administrative accountability. Its purpose would be to rigorously examine the quality, transparency, and legality of executive and statutory orders, ensuring officials adhere to principles of natural justice and fairness.

Fixing responsibilities and liabilities

A critical component of this special machinery must be the systemic implementation of fixing responsibilities and liabilities on officials while they are passing orders.

Financial liability:If an arbitrary or malicious order leads to protracted, successful litigation against the State, resulting in significant costs, penalties, or damages, the official responsible for the initial flawed decision should face a mechanism of personal or financial accountability, to some extent.

Performance accountability:Executive performance metrics must shift from simple disposal rates to a focus on the quality of decisions and the subsequent rate of those decisions being overturned by higher courts or tribunals.

A holistic approach to judicial relief

Ultimately, addressing the overwhelming pendency of cases requires a shift in focus from merely examining the disposal of cases to a deeper commitment to addressing the cause of litigation.

While the judiciary is doing its part through strategies like the "trickle-down effect" resolving large blocks of cases with precedent-setting judgments this is fundamentally a defensive measure. The truly enduring solution lies in an offensive strategy against administrative failure. Only when the executive and statutory authorities are compelled to act with probity, transparency, and a commitment to the public interest will the flow of unnecessary litigation dry up, providing the judiciary with the necessary space to focus its energies on complex constitutional and critical matters. Rectifying the systemic weaknesses in the Executive is not just an administrative priority it is the most effective form of judicial reform.

(The writer is a senior advocate)