NEW DELHI: Holding that public interest isn’t synonymous with the cause of govt but with enforcing accountability, Supreme Court said courts shouldn’t overlook govt negligence or condone inordinate delay in filing cases, as this amounts to institutionalising inefficiency.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said courts shouldn’t become a “surrogate of state laxity” by allowing govt to reopen a case beyond the limitation period, thereby keeping the ‘sword of Damocles’ hanging indefinitely over the head of a private litigant. Terming Karnataka high court’s order allowing state housing board to reopen a case of land dispute against a private person after a delay of 11 years a “mockery of justice”, bench put all high courts on notice, asking them not to condone inordinate delay on part of govt.The bench rejected the plea that delay can be overlooked as public interest is involved and said, “Public interest does not lie in condoning governmental negligence, but in compelling efficiency, responsibility, and timely decision-making. This court has time and again emphasised that liberal condonation of delay on behalf of the state, merely on the ground that refusal might cause the dismissal of a potentially meritorious matter, is a misplaced proposition. Public interest is not synonymous with the cause of the govt; it is, instead, synonymous with the enforcement of rule of law, certainty in legal rights, and an administrative machinery that functions with diligence and accountability”.”It must, therefore, be underscored that the guiding principle is not the protection of governmental indifference but the promotion of responsible governance. The state is under a higher duty to act in time, for in every matter it litigates, it does so not in its private capacity but as the trustee of the people’s interest. Hence, repeated indulgence in condoning delays on grounds of bureaucratic inefficiency would amount to eroding the very object of limitation statutes, which are enacted in every civilised jurisdiction for the sake of finality, certainty, and public order,” the bench said.The litigation in the case between the board and a private person over a piece of land started 36 years ago in 1989. In 2006, a court ruled against the board, which took 11 years to file its appeal in 2017, with the HC condoning this delay of 3,966 days.
