Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Petitioner Flogged a Dead Horse: Supreme Court Dismisses Petitioner's Attempt to Change Date of Birth, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine for Frivolous Litigation

17 September 2024 10:03 AM

By: sayum


In a recent Judgement, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner, Balbir Singh, sought a change in his date of birth after nearly 35 years, a request that was consistently denied by various courts. The Supreme Court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000 for what it described as frivolous and repetitive litigation, clogging the court's docket.

Balbir Singh, an engineer who completed his matriculation in March 1981 and his BE course in 1987, initially recorded his date of birth as April 10, 1962. In 1999, he claimed that this was erroneous and that his correct date of birth was April 23, 1964. He first filed a civil suit in 2007 seeking to amend his matriculation certificate and service records. This suit, along with subsequent appeals, was dismissed at every judicial level, including by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court.

The core legal issue revolved around the petitioner's request to change his recorded date of birth, which he pursued nearly 35 years later. The courts emphasized that such changes cannot be made retrospectively, especially after a considerable passage of time and after the petitioner had served in his role for over a decade. The Supreme Court had already dismissed the petitioner's earlier attempts, noting a lack of merit.

Despite multiple dismissals, the petitioner continued to litigate the matter, including seeking a review of the Supreme Court's previous dismissal. The Supreme Court noted the petitioner's persistence as an attempt to "flog a dead horse." It observed that the petitioner, being a qualified engineer, should have understood the legal implications and the futility of his claims. The Court emphasized that such repetitive and meritless litigation burdens the judicial system unnecessarily.

In dismissing the present Special Leave Petition, the Court not only found no merit in the case but also imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000. This amount was ordered to be deposited with the AIIMS Poor Patients Fund within three months, with a stipulation for recovery as arrears of land revenue in case of non-compliance.

The Supreme Court's judgment serves as a strong message against frivolous and persistent litigation, particularly when the legal position is well-settled. By imposing a significant cost, the Court aims to deter similar future conduct that clogs the judicial system.

Date of Decision: August 20, 2024

Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Similar News