Courts Should Be Conscious Of Bureaucratic Delays : SC

Courts Should Be Conscious Of Bureaucratic Delays : SC

-Nishtha Singh

Background :

A bureaucracy refers to an organization which is complex with multilayered systems and processes. These systems and procedures are designed to maintain uniformity and controls within an organization. A bureaucracy describes the established methods in large organizations or governments. It is a system of organization and control that is based on three principles: hierarchical authority, job specialization, and formalized rules.

Condonation of Delay is the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases; the particular delay has been defined in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It preferred appeal and application and does not include suit as it is an exception to the Bar of Limitation which is defined under the Act. The Doctrine of Delay Condonation doesn’t applies to execution proceedings as it deals with the Criminal Cases. For taking the benefit of this Doctrine, the applicant must have the sufficient cause in order to condone the delay. The Doctrine is relevant only upto the Criminal Proceedings because it does not prohibit other Sections. It is the discretion of the Court even after the sufficient cause given by the applicant, instances in which condone is delay has been given under the project. While making an application, certain conflicts are to be mentioned by the Court under the Limitation  Act.

Statement of Problem:

The statement of any problem under the Doctrine of Condonation of Delay is an exception to the general rule that is Bar of Limitation under the Act, and it does not include ‘Suit’. The Court Condone the delay only when an applicant has sufficient cause for not preferring appeal and application. The rationale behind this has been discussed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be defined because it is wide and liberal in nature.

Current Issues :

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 22nd October 2019, in the matter of The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Koting Lamkang, pronounced that while deciding an application for condonation of delay by the state, it is necessary for the court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delays, the slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it.

The Supreme Court has observed that while considering the delay condonation plea filed by State, the Courts should be conscious of the bureaucratic delays and the slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it.

READ ALSO: WHEN CAN A CRIMINAL COURT ORDER RETRIAL-PATNA HC

The court was considering an appeal filed by the State against the Manipur High Court's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal. The state had submitted that they made a bonafide mistake in preferring the appeal against the order and decree before a wrong forum.

While allowing the appeal [State of Manipur vs. Koting Lamkang], the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy said:

Regard should be had in similar circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected.

The court also noted that, as per the impugned order which was appealed against, the State of Manipur, the Director General of Police and the Commandant of 8th battalion of the Manipur rifles, are to vacate and handover a property projected to some area of strategic importance. If consideration of the RFA is not permitted on strategically sensitive case involving security, in the ultimate analysis, the public interest is likely to suffer, the bench said.

Conclusion :

SC view in some other cases

The Supreme Court, in some cases, have held that Government working lethargy is not a pretext to condone the delay. Importantly, in Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd, it was observed:

The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be  accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation unquestionably binds everybody including the Government. In our view, it is an appropriate time to inform all the government bodies and their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under  special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and it should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

READ ALSO: ANCESTRAL PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD BY NON-LEGAL HEIR - SC