Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Govt Counsels Come Unprepared, Files Missing, Justice Delayed — Enough is Enough: Rajasthan High Court Issues Stern Directions on Litigations Mishandled by State Officers

14 April 2025 4:09 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“The absence of proper assistance by Officers-in-Charge shall be treated as personal responsibility. Erring officers will face strict disciplinary action and recovery of costs from their own pockets” – In a scathing and unprecedented judicial indictment of institutional negligence, the Rajasthan High Court on March 24, 2025, tore into the chronic failure of State Officers and Officers-in-Charge (OICs) in assisting government counsels during court proceedings. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while hearing Badri Narayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., declared that no longer will court proceedings be adjourned due to files not being handed over or lack of instructions from the departments.

The Court thundered, “This Court feels pain to observe that in most of the cases, the Officers-In-Charge are not providing the original case file to their respective counsels… because of their condemnable negligence and lethargic attitude, the cases are deferred from one day to another, which hampers the process of providing justice.”

“Nine Years of Delay Because Officers Didn’t Hand Over Case Files — This Can’t Be Tolerated in a Civilised Legal System”

The writ petition, pending since 2016, became a flashpoint for exposing the systemic collapse in litigation management across Rajasthan. Justice Dhand noted that despite LITES (Litigation Information Tracking and Evaluation System) being introduced over two decades ago, there is “no significant improvement” in litigation conduct by government departments.

“There is no list of pending department-wise cases provided to the counsels. The newly appointed counsels are clueless… It is utterly shocking and surprising,” the Court remarked.

“Personal Liability, Recovery from Salary, ACR Downgrade — From Now On, Officers Will Be Made to Pay for Judicial Delays”

Issuing what amounts to a judicial mandate across the Rajasthan bureaucracy, the High Court directed that all government departments must provide pending case lists to their respective counsels within a one-month deadline. The Court warned:

“If the Court fails to get proper assistance from any department, appropriate costs would be imposed and recovered from the erring officer's personal pocket… Disciplinary action will follow. Adverse remarks will be made in the ACRs, potentially affecting future promotions.”

The order emphasized that non-compliance would be viewed seriously and adverse court orders arising from such dereliction shall be the personal responsibility of the defaulting officer.

“LITES is Failing, Legal Cells Are Absent, Counsels Are Clueless”: High Court Recites the Litany of State Inaction Despite Repeated Court Orders
The judgment reviewed the status of the Justice Department created in 2005 to streamline litigation management. Despite the use of technology like LITES, the Court noted, “All the efforts made to improve the current situation have been in vain.”

Justice Dhand said, “Despite more than 20 years having passed since the launch of the LITES portal, no significant measures have been taken to address the challenges faced by Government Counsels in the Courts.”

The Court cited its previous directions in Sardar Mal Yadav v. State Elementary Education Dept. (decided February 7, 2025), where it had already directed the Chief Secretary and Principal Law Secretary to frame guidelines and establish accountability structures. However, the same issues persisted.

“AI, Real-Time Dashboards, Big Data, CLE, Private Lawyers — Time for State to Modernize Litigation Strategy, Or Pay the Price”
The Court didn’t stop at criticism. It outlined an ambitious 14-point roadmap, suggesting radical measures such as:

•    AI-powered case sorting and automated documentation
•    Cross-training of OICs in law and continuing legal education
•    Performance-based ACRs for OICs based on litigation handling
•    Real-time dashboards for monitoring case progress
•    Engagement of private legal experts in specialized matters
•    Incentive structures to reward efficient litigation management

“Officers who manage their caseload efficiently and ensure that cases are handled within the prescribed timelines shall be rewarded. It will also encourage others to perform their duties diligently,” the Court stated.

“Enough Circulars, Now Execute Them”: Court Orders Strict Action Across 54 State Departments and All Rajasthan Districts
With a detailed compliance order attached to 54 listed departments including Law, Home, Revenue, Forest, Education, Medical, Transport, PWD, PHED, and Urban Development, the Court directed:

“All departments shall instruct their OICs to perform all duties assigned without fail. Delay caused by absence of proper instructions will lead to cost recovery, personal liability, and disciplinary action.”

The Chief Secretary, Principal Law Secretary, and District Magistrates were directed to submit compliance reports by April 15, 2025, and the matter is listed for monitoring.

“If You Delay Justice, You’ll Pay the Price — From Your Own Salary”: Rajasthan High Court Sends Bureaucracy a Final Warning
This judgment may well be remembered as a judicial blueprint for litigation reform in government functioning. With real consequences now being tied to bureaucratic lethargy, the message from the Bench is loud and clear — “No more excuses. No more adjournments. Justice delayed is accountability enforced.”

Date of Decision:  March 24, 2025
 

Latest Legal News