Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Naresh Kumar Sehgal v. Union of India and Ors . - (31 Jul 2015)

When crying wolf 218 times is one too many

MANU/PH/2183/2015

Civil

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently passed a judgment calling a Petitioner's suit (with a further 20 listed for the month of August, 2015) frivolous. The Petitioner, posing as a press reporter to level allegations against officials in the government, had commenced 218 petitions before the High Court since 2003. Taking account of the multitude of vexatious litigation, untruthfulness of the Petitioner and wasted judicial time, the Court directed the registry to not entertain petitions filed by the Petitioner of the kind levelling “wild allegations” against people and seeking security for himself. It imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh, the recovery of which it urged, if need be, by “coercive process”.

Relevant : Vexatious litigants and frivolous litigation are reserved a unique place in the law. Legal procedures around the world acknowledge the existence of habitual litigators by incorporating provisions to bar them from wasting court time. For instance, Courts in the United Kingdom and United States of America can require undertakings and leave of court before filing a claim, and even strike out part (or whole) of the claim. What's more, the European Court of Human Rights found that curbing frequent and vexatious litigators did not contravene their human rights. In India, by contrast, compensation post litigation, and limited to a small amount, maybe serves to embolden than deter vexatious litigation. In the instant case, the Court's pursuit to rehabilitate “one who seeks a halo of a persecuted man”, may prove only so fruitful, with it opting for a limited refrain from filing litigation. On the other hand, Madhya Pradesh's recently passed Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Bill, 2015, allowing courts to declare a person a 'vexatious litigant', should provide revelations. Though, perhaps, it could have been introduced at a more opportune moment.

Tags : VEXATIOUS   FRIVOLOUS   LITIGATION   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved