- Art. 136 - State’s responsibility when seeking determination under Art. 136 - State cannot act like a private litigant and challenge every order made against it - State must seek proper advice as to whether a case requires determination by Supreme Court under Art. 136 - Delay of twelve years resulting from State appeal to Supreme Court - Held, it was not necessary that State Govt. should have challenged the order of the High Court remitting the dispute to the arbitrator for redetermination thereby causing unnecessary expense and delay - Practice and procedure - State as a litigant - State cannot act like a private litigant
STATE OF ORISSA V. ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LTD.,
(1999) 3 SCC 566 : AIR 1999 SC 2253.
Bench Strength 2. Coram : D.P. Wadhwa 1 and N. Santosh Hegde 2, JJ. [Date of decision : 9-4-1999]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty of State/public authority to place entire facts before court for appropriate decision, emphasised - Thus, where in the matter in question the State filed interim applications before the Tribunal concerned and orders were passed thereon, the State ought to have placed all the said facts before the Supreme Court during hearingof the matter by it - Water and Water Resources - Water Disputes - Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, S. 5 - Constitution of India, Arts. 12, 32 & 226 - State as a litigant/party - Duty of, to place entire facts before court for appropriate decision
Atma Linga Reddy v. Union of India, (2008) 7 SCC 788 : (2008) 106 Cut LT 612.(Para 60)
Bench Strength 2. Coram : C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ. [Date of decision : 10-7-2008]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- State should act in a responsible manner as an enlightened litigant - It should not try to take advantage of any misleading observations of the Court
It is more unfortunate if it is taken advantage of by the appellant-State, when it does not act with responsibility as is expected of it in creating misleading impression on the Supreme Court to serve its own purpose. The appellant State should behave like an enlightened litigant and not like an ordinary person to obtain an interim order, which is of little consequence.
State of Maharashtra v. Admane Anita Moti, (1994) 6 SCC 109 : AIR 1995 SC 350.
Bench Strength 2. Coram : R.M. Sahai and N.P. Singh, JJ. [Date of decision : 31-8-1994]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- State as a party also entitled to equal treatment
Ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The Community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the Community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain.
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364 : AIR 1987 SC 1321 : 1987 Cri LJ 1061 : (1987) 13 ECC 12.
Bench Strength 2. Coram : M.P. Thakkar and S. Natarajan, JJ. [Date of decision : 26-3-1987]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nature and importance of legal profession - Role of lawyers - Casual and indifferent attitude of some of the lawyers deprecated - Improvement in quality of service stressed
It is in the hands of the members of the legal profession to improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant-public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society. Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings - many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.
The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously and practised it with dignity, deference and devotion. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practise the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty.
Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In re,
(1995) 3 SCC 619: 1995 Cri LJ 2910.
Bench Strength 2. Coram : P.B. Sawant and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. [Date of decision : 19-4-1995]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 701
Mundrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
(Before V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Shinghal, JJ.)
MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINGH . . Petitioner;;
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR . . Respondent.
Indeed, in this country where government litigation constitutes a sizable bulk of the total volume, it is important that the
State should be a model litigant with accent on settlement.