Karnataka High Court flags irony: Law meant to curb red tapism bogged down it

Noticing delays from 466 days to 1,099 days in filling appeals against judgments, the High Court of Karnataka has said that the State government enacted the Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Act, 2023, “to arrest red tapism, but red tapism appears to have arrested the operation of this law.”

A Division Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni made these observations on the four appeals filed by the State government challenging verdicts of a single judge related to service of certain employees in the Karnataka State Law University. 

What the 2023 Act said

Apart from various judgments of the apex court on delay in filling appeals by the State authorities, the State-enacted Act of 2023 clearly prescribes that officers must stick to the period of limitation fixed to prefer appeals, review or revision against a court verdict, the Bench said, while pointing out that that none of present appeals demonstrate adherence to the statutory discipline contemplated in the law on conduct of litigation.

“The time limits prescribed for movement of files, securing opinions, and taking decisions appear to have been thrown to the winds. The State, which enacted the law to bring order and accountability into governmental litigation, has itself failed to demonstrate fidelity to its mandate. The irony is unmistakable: the State enacted a law to arrest red tapism, but red tapism appears to have arrested the operation of the law, Bench observed.

The Bench noted that the explanations offered for the delays — files moving from table to table, correspondence passing from officer to officer, legal opinions being sought and documents collected — merely chronicled administrative activity without establishing sufficient cause to condone the delay in filling of the appeal. 

‘Don’t seek exception’

“The State is expected to be a model litigant, not a privileged procrastinator. Its obligation is to uphold the rule of law, not to seek exceptions from its operation,” the Bench said while observing that “a law enacted by the State cannot remain a mere ornament in the statute book, commanding obedience from everyone except its own author.

Stating that applications filed by the State government explaining reason for the enormous delay “disclose no exceptional circumstance, no compelling impediment and no credible explanation that could constitute sufficient cause for the extraordinary delays,” the Bench said, while observing that “what is presented as an explanation is, in substance, an assortment of administrative excuses; what is sought as judicial indulgence would, if granted, amount to judicial endorsement of bureaucratic apathy.”

Terming one of the applications a “verbatim reproduction” of another, the Bench said a “copy-and-paste explanation cannot become a passport to condonation of delay”.