LI Network
Published on: October 10, 2023 at 14:05 IST
The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concerns regarding the delay in appeals filed by the state. This concern was raised in response to a discretionary order issued by the Jharkhand High Court, which had reduced the maintenance for a wife to just Rs. 1000 per month.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling on October 9, emphasized the importance of adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach in such cases, where certain flexibility should be allowed to the state.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, reiterated the well-established principle that “a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below.”
This principle underscores the importance of respecting the decisions made by lower courts unless there is a clear error.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case relied on the precedent set by the Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa (2003), which, in turn, drew from the Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980). In the latter case, the Apex Court had established that an appellate court should only interfere when the lower court’s order is clearly wrong, not just because it may not be entirely right.
The case in question involved an appeal filed by certain affected landowners challenging an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
The High Court had allowed an application by the Union of India to condone a delay of approximately 479 days in presenting an appeal related to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This delay occurred after the Reference Court had enhanced compensation for the landowners.
The central issue before the Court was whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and whether the Union of India had provided sufficient cause for the delay.
Contentions of the Parties
Senior advocate Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, representing the appellant, argued that there was a significant delay in both obtaining a certified copy of the Reference Court’s order and filing the appeal after receiving approval from the Principal Secretary (Land and Building). Sharma contended that these reasons were insufficient to justify the delay and were common explanations used in land acquisition matters to seek condonation of delay.
On the contrary, Senior Advocate Sanjiv Sen, representing the Union of India, urged the Supreme Court not to overturn the findings of the High Court. Sen emphasized that the High Court had judiciously exercised its discretion in condoning the delay after assessing the sufficiency of the reasons. He also pointed out that the delay in obtaining the certified copy was due to the unprofessional conduct of the concerned counsel and should not hinder a meritorious claim by the Union of India.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, after considering various precedents, highlighted the importance of ensuring that substantive rights of both private parties and the state are not defeated due to technical delays. However, the Court reiterated that the condonation of delay is a discretionary power of the courts, and the exercise of this discretion should depend on the sufficiency of the cause and the acceptability of the explanation, regardless of the length of the delay.
The Court also made a clear distinction between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse.‘ An explanation is meant to provide all the facts and reasons for an event, clarifying that it is not the person’s fault. An excuse, on the other hand, is often used to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. The Court emphasized that there is a fine but real distinction between these two terms.
In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had provided several reasons to support its decision to condone the delay, and this exercise of discretion was not arbitrary. Therefore, the Court concluded that the High Court’s decision did not warrant interference.
The Court’s verdict emphasized the need to consider the impersonal nature of the government’s functioning, where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. It stressed that individual defaults should not lead to the loss of appeals by the state, as it would be against the collective interest of the government.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to condone the delay, recognizing the need to balance the competing interests involved and remove impediments in the functioning of government processes. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was titled “Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr.”