Karnataka High Court Initiates Suo Moto PIL To Streamline Procedure For Compliance With Court Orders, Directions
The Karnataka High Court on Monday initiated suo-motu a public interest litigation to streamline the procedure for compliance with the orders and directions of the courts. A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “It is necessary that at the hierarchies of Government, a proper and effective machinery is created to oversee the regard, respect...
The Karnataka High Court on Monday initiated suo-motu a public interest litigation to streamline the procedure for compliance with the orders and directions of the courts.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “It is necessary that at the hierarchies of Government, a proper and effective machinery is created to oversee the regard, respect and implementation of the court's orders.”
The bench remarked that one of the measures to judge the democratic commitment of any government is the respect it accords to the orders of the court. At the same time, it stated that the real majesty of the Court lies in its vibrant existence and effective functioning. and such vibrancy and effectiveness would be achieved by ensuring due implementation and swift obedience of the judgments and orders of the Court.
The speedy implementation of the judgments and orders of the Court is inextricably interwoven in the enforcement of rule of law. It is part of the observance of the rule of law, the Court stated.
Court gave instances of cases which were presented before it in the last two weeks and more, filed under the Contempt of the Courts Act 1971, wherein the directions and orders of the Court are not seen attended to by the authorities, and even the formal directions, which would affect the rights of the litigants, remained without any compliance
It said “The judgments and orders passed by the courts of law are shelved for one or other reason, either out of lethargy or because of red-tapism. The court said “Such a state of things is fatal to the interests of administration of justice, much more, it erodes the faith and confidence of a common man in the judicial machinery and judicial system.”
It was observed that the right of relief for a litigant consists of immediate and undelayed fructification of the judgments and orders of the courts delivered in his favour. Court stated that it could be viewed that the right to reap the fruits of the relief granted by the court is, in a way, a fundamental right of a litigant citizen, when the right to approach the court itself is a fundamental right.
“The orders of the courts so disregarded and neglected for their compliance bring about a situation where the public at large would view that the system has failed. It would be considered that the courts have been losing their authority and their orders do not have any effect on the authorities of the Government,” the Bench stated.
Court emphasised that although the contempt jurisdiction was a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly. whenever the act of non-compliance negates the enjoyment of rights of the litigants and citizens flowing from court orders, adversely affects the administration of justice. which stands to impede its course or tends to shake the public confidence in the judicial institution, the Courts have to be strict.
Further, it opined “Lethargic and insensitive approach on the part of the authorities towards the compliance of the orders and directions of the courts cannot be tolerated. It has to be dealt with sternly. As the justice delayed is justice denied, too belated compliance is not to be countenanced, but has to be viewed as contempt of court itself committed in disguise or in indirect manner.”
The bench accordingly issued notice to the respondent state government and directed the Registrar General to obtain the list of all the departments of the Government of Karnataka and arraign them as respondents.
The court has directed the authorities to respond to the following points.
(i) What method of processing is adopted after and once orders or judgments of the High Court, or any other Court, are received by the Department or in the office of competent authority?
(ii) Whether any special branch or designated authority is made functional, to treat, deal with and act upon, the orders and directions by the courts to take them to their logical end of compliance?
(iii) Whether any machinery or mechanism is created internally in the Department or governmental bodies for ensuring compliance of the directions of the courts as may be required as per the orders and judgments of the courts?
(iv) What steps are generally taken by the authorities concerned to attend to, to supervise, to monitor and to effectuate the orders and directions of the courts?
(v) Whether any disciplinary measures are evolved or taken against the erring Officers who are found to be sitting tight over the orders and directions of the courts or those who are guilty of non-compliance within the time stipulated in the order or within reasonable time.
In posing these questions the Bench said, “The beneficiaries are the class of litigants, who will be benefited if the authorities activate themselves to discharge their constitutional duty to obey and implement the orders of the courts without booking any delay on their part, without which, it will not be possible for the litigants to enjoy the results of the litigation which may have ended in their favour. All the more, the orders of the court are the source of rights and obligations of the litigants.”
Accordingly, it posted the matter on 5th June 2024.