FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION – Deterrence against – Need for – Frivolous litigation poses a significant challenge to the judicial system, consuming valuable time and resources that could be better utilized for legitimate cases – Imposition of costs as a strong deterrent against vexatious, frivolous, and speculative litigations or defenses – Costs acting as an incentive for compliance with procedural laws, alternative dispute resolution, and providing indemnity to successful litigants – Balancing the right to access the court with the need to deter abusive litigation and maintain an efficient justice system. (Para 92-98)

COSTS – Imposition of – Exercise of judicial discretion – Judicial discretion in determining costs for frivolous litigations to be exercised judiciously, considering the facts, circumstances, and intentions of the parties involved – Costs serving as a retributive function leading to effective deterrents against abuse of the legal process. (Para 99-101)

JUDICIAL REFORMS – Frivolous litigation as a focal point – Frivolous litigation being a major obstacle to achieving a speedy and effective justice system – Need to explore ways of dealing with frivolous litigation-related issues through new policies and legal reforms. (Para 110)

GENUINE LITIGANTS – Protection of interests – Imposing costs as a safeguard to protect the interests of genuine litigants – Discouraging the filing of frivolous litigations or defenses, thereby allocating limited judicial resources to matters that are genuine and bona fide. (Para 99, 102, 113)

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT – Limits of – Frivolous litigants having a right to be heard – Judicial orders in frivolous cases required to prevent future abusive proceedings – Imposing reasonable sanctions and costs as a means to deter litigants before pursuing frivolous litigation – Preserving an efficient judicial process. (Para 113)

ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW – Filing of frivolous petitions as an abuse of process of law – Pleadings devoid of merit, absurdness, and scandalousness – Such abuse of the system affecting not only the responding party but also the public at large. (Para 106, 107, 109)

ACCESS TO JUSTICE – Fundamental right to access the court – Balance between the right of a person to freely access and pursue legal remedies and the need to redress abusive and frivolous litigation – Financial sanctions and deterrence as measures to de-clog the legal system and encourage meaningful and meritorious litigation. (Para 116)

JUDICIAL DISCRETION – Efficient utilization of judicial time – Investing judicial time in meaningful and meritorious disputes rather than frivolous litigation – Judicial discretion required to strike a balance between free access to justice and striking out frivolous litigation at the threshold. (Para 100, 102, 105)

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION – Role of bar council – Need for the Bar Council of India to come forward and assist the bench in dealing with frivolous litigations – Spending more judicial time on adjudicating meritorious disputes speedily and efficiently. (Para 104)

JUDICIAL EDUCATION – Importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial education institutes – Frivolous litigations targeting government authorities, institutions, and past Supreme Court judges as an abuse of the process of law – Courts not tolerating such abuse and seeking assistance in dealing with frivolous litigation. (Para 104)

JUDICIAL REFORMS – Action against frivolous litigants – Volume of frivolous litigation posing a challenge to the overburdened judiciary – Need for appropriate rules or laws to deal with such limitations and initiate a new paradigm. (Para 118)

DISMISSAL OF PETITIONS – Frivolous petitions devoid of merit and abuse of process of law – Dismissal of petitions with costs as a deterrent – Costs to be deposited within a specified period – Compliance to be filed with the registry. (Para 120)

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge-sheet and Summoning Order – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Lack of reasoning and application of mind in the impugned orders – Seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case – Judicial scrutiny of evidence – Importance of Magistrate’s application of mind before summoning – Apex Court’s precedents on taking cognizance – Cryptic nature of the impugned order – Need for sufficient indication of the Magistrate’s application of mind – Setting aside of the impugned order – Opportunity for the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. (Paragraphs 1 to 13)

Criminal Law – Offence and Offender – Distinction – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates – Cognizance taken of cases, not persons – Exercise of judicial mind while passing orders of summoning – Veracity of allegations as a question of evidence – Court’s role in determining if the respondents are answerable before the criminal court – Necessity of clear application of mind to the facts constituting commission of an offence – Absence of formal or reasoned orders at the stage of Section 190/204 Cr.P.C. – Requirement of sufficient indication of the Magistrate’s application of mind. (Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11)

Criminal Procedure – Summoning an Accused – Prima facie case – Examination of allegations and evidence – Judicial scrutiny by the Magistrate – Competence to consider inherent improbabilities in the complaint or evidence – Discretionary exercise of judicial mind by the Magistrate – Substitution of the Magistrate’s discretion by higher courts – Seriousness of summoning an accused – Criminal law not set into motion as a matter of course – Need for a well-reasoned order with the application of judicial mind. (Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11)

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed to address concerns regarding drug and alcohol de-addiction centers in India – Importance of the issue in eroding public health and social fabric – Government’s approach through supply reduction and demand reduction – Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE) implementing schemes for prevention and assistance – Need for regulation and monitoring of private rehabilitation centers. (Para 1 and 2)

Report of the amicus curiae highlighting flaws in the current approach to rehabilitation – Emphasis on evidence-based medical practices and consensual treatment – Need for regulation and monitoring of private rehabilitation centers. (Para 6)

Initiatives undertaken by the Government of India – Comprehensive survey on substance use – National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) – Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan (NMBA) – Transparency measures and monitoring of NGOs. (Para 9 and 10)

Court’s satisfaction with the government’s efforts – Acknowledgment of the petitioner’s contribution – Importance of sustained attention and a multifaceted approach – Disposal of the petition while urging the government to continue its efforts to combat substance abuse. (Para 12 and 13)

Criminal Procedure - Bail - Regular Bail - Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner involved in FIR No.914 dated 22.11.2022, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 IPC (Sections 307, 325, and 326 IPC added later) - Petitioner in custody for over 6 months - Allegations against petitioner emerged in supplementary statement of complainant after 3½ months - Co-accused previously granted regular bail - None of 15 witnesses examined yet - Petitioner not involved in any other case - Trial likely to take considerable time - Court finds further incarceration of petitioner unnecessary.

Conditions for Bail - Conditions imposed on petitioner - Not to tamper with evidence - Not to intimidate prosecution witnesses - Mandatory appearance before trial Court - Not to commit similar offences - Not to coerce or threaten individuals acquainted with case facts - Not to misuse liberty - Furnishing address and mobile number to trial Court - Not to leave the country without prior permission - Trial Court may impose additional conditions if necessary.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25F, 25G & 25H – Violation alleged – Worker failing to prove completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year – Court’s considered opinion that violation of Section 25F does not arise – No retrenchment of worker under Sections 25G & 25H – Muster roll employee paid wages as a daily wager due to administrative exigencies – Sections 25G & 25H not attracted – No entitlement to reinstatement. (Para 65 to 66)

High Courts’ Jurisdiction – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – Limitation on interference with findings of fact – Writ Court not acting as an appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of error of law apparent on the face of the record – Findings of fact by inferior courts or tribunals not to be reopened or questioned – Scope of supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 67 to 70)

Writ of Certiorari – Issuance – Correction of error of law – Error must be manifest on the face of the record – Error of law apparent when conclusion based on obvious misinterpretation of statutory provision or in disregard of it – Finding of fact by tribunal not open to challenge unless perverse or based on no evidence – Interference permissible in case of illegality or violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 71 to 73)

Interference by High Court – Findings of fact by Labour Court – Conditions for interference – Award must be perverse, based on wrong legal principles, or not considering relevant facts – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence within exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal – Writ Court must record reasons for reconsideration of a finding of fact – Absence of defects in findings precludes entry into factual disputes. (Para 75 to 76)

Supreme Court precedents – Judicial pronouncements dealing with High Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction – Limitation on interference by writ courts with factual findings – Court’s adherence to principles established in earlier judgments. (Para 78 to 79)

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail - Accused in custody for 2 years, 8 months, and 3 days - FIR registered under Sections 114, 216, 302, 120-B, and 34 IPC; Sections 30 and 25 of the Arms Act - Recovery of a different firearm from the petitioner compared to the alleged weapon used in the offense - Eight co-accused already granted regular bail by High Court and trial Court - Material witnesses not supporting prosecution's case - Petitioner on bail in other cases - Citing precedent Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. (Para 1, 2)

Grant of Bail - Factors considered - Role of accused in the case, possibility of fleeing jurisdiction, and criminal antecedents - Petitioner's long custody period, bail in other cases, and lack of support from material witnesses taken into account - Trial likely to take considerable time - Further incarceration not serving any useful purpose. (Para 6)

Bail Conditions - Conditions imposed on petitioner - Not to tamper with evidence during trial - Not to pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses - Mandatory appearance in trial Court - Not to commit similar offenses - Not to coerce or threaten witnesses - No misuse of liberty - Furnishing address and mobile number to the trial Court - No leaving the country without Court permission. (Para 7)

Observations - Limited scope - Observations made in the present proceedings not indicative of the merits of the case - Trial to proceed independently - State's liberty to seek bail cancellation in case of any breach of conditions. (Para 9)

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, Section 14(5)(d) and (e), Section 15(2) – Proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board – Whether constitutes ‘Criminal Court’ – Petitioner falsely implicated in criminal case – Juvenile at the time of occurrence – Applied for re-issue of passport – Passport withheld by authorities – Challenge to the action of respondents No.2 and 3 – Prayer for re-issuance of passport – Inquiry proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board stayed by Court – Whether proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board qualify as proceedings before Criminal Court – Whether Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act applicable – Observations of Court – Juvenile Justice Board has trappings of Criminal Court – Proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board attract Section 6(2)(f) – Office Memorandum exempting citizens with pending criminal proceedings from Passport Act’s provisions – Petitioner entitled to issuance of passport subject to appropriate orders from Juvenile Justice Board – Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para No.1- 16)

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, Section 14(5)(d) and (e), Section 15(2) – Proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board – Whether constitutes ‘Criminal Court’ – Petitioner falsely implicated in criminal case – Juvenile at the time of occurrence – Applied for re-issue of passport – Passport withheld by authorities – Challenge to the action of respondents No.2 and 3 – Prayer for re-issuance of passport – Inquiry proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board stayed by Court – Whether proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board qualify as proceedings before Criminal Court – Whether Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act applicable – Observations of Court – Juvenile Justice Board has trappings of Criminal Court – Proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board attract Section 6(2)(f) – Office Memorandum exempting citizens with pending criminal proceedings from Passport Act’s provisions – Petitioner entitled to issuance of passport subject to appropriate orders from Juvenile Justice Board – Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para No.1- 16)

Rejection of Leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C. – Trial court’s rejection of leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C., finding no necessity for urgent relief in the suit matter, held untenable. High Court emphasizes understanding the real spirit behind Section 80 C.P.C. and its sub-sections.

Purpose of Section 80 C.P.C. – Section 80 C.P.C. mandates a two-month notice in writing before suing the Government or a public officer for acts in their official capacity. Sub-section (2) allows suits without prior notice if “urgent and immediate relief” is necessary.

Protecting the Plaintiff’s Interest – Sub-section (2) protects the plaintiff’s interests from emergent dangers or invasions of valuable rights. Court to consider the need for urgent relief over rigid compliance with two-month prior notice.

Subjective Satisfaction and Probability of Irreparable Injury – Court should assess the need for urgent relief based on subjective satisfaction and the probability of irreparable injury at the initial stage.

Section 80(2) C.P.C. as a Precautionary Measure – Section 80(2) C.P.C. is a precautionary measure to resolve grievances without litigation. Not an absolute condition precedent in all cases.

Overlooking the Cardinal Principle – Trial court overlooks the cardinal principle behind Section 80 C.P.C., returns suit without considering the application for urgent remedy. High Court sets aside the decision and restores the suit.

Restoration of the Suit – High Court restores the suit to the trial court for further consideration. Parties to appear before the trial court on 25/07/2023. Trial court to reconsider grant of leave and pass necessary orders.