The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Union government while dismissing a plea challenging relief granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to a CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) constable who had been removed from service for unauthorised absence of 11 days (Union of India vs. Sukhwinder Singh).
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the Union’s decision to pursue the matter despite the High Court granting relief reflected unnecessary litigation that added to court pendency.
The Bench questioned why the Union had approached the Supreme Court at all.
“We keep shouting pendency, pendency. Who is the biggest litigant? High court granted him relief. Instead of giving opinion that you will not go to Supreme Court, you still proceed against him. We do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. We fail to understand as to why the Union of India and others have approached this Court,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
The Court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal with costs of ₹25,000.
The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the CISF constable, who had been removed from service on allegations including unauthorised absence and alleged involvement in facilitating the elopement of a woman with his brother.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier found that the constable’s absence coincided with sanctioned medical leave and that the allegation relating to the woman’s elopement did not amount to misconduct. The High Court consequently quashed the punishment orders passed against him.
Despite this, the Union government challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna linked the case to the issue of excessive government litigation contributing to judicial backlog.
Referring to
remarks she had recently made at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) national conference on judicial governance, she said the observations made there were meant to be taken seriously.
“We have taken the SCBA conference very seriously. It was not just to go to some resort and come back. We made preparations, we did homework. We spoke. Not to forget,” she remarked.
At the
conference last month, Justice Nagarathna had observed that while governments often blame the judiciary for delays, they remain the largest contributors to litigation in the country.
"Government is the single largest litigator, we are carrying the burden of the evasiveness of the government in the judicial system. The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation" she had said.
A Soured Succession: Spoken by a Sore Patriarch
Ranganathan V,
01 April 2026
Vijaypat Singhania, who passed away on 28 March 2026, acknowledged, with rare candour, in his autobiography, ‘An Incomplete Life’, the series of impulsive decisions and errors of judgment that led to his legacy at Raymond Ltd being...
Vijaypat Singhania (1938–2026): Industrialist, Aviator, Institution-builder
Moneylife Digital Team
31 March 2026
Vijaypat Kailashpat Singhania, former chairman of the Raymond group and recipient of the Padma Bhushan, passed away in Mumbai on Saturday, 28 March Singhania was publicly associat 2026. He was 87. In his later years, Mr Singhania was...
Bombay High Court Gags Lilavati Trust, Param Bir Singh in Defamation Case
Bar
and
Bench
27 March 2026
The Bombay High Court on Thursday restrained both the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust and former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh from publishing or republishing alleged defamatory material against each other in media...
IPL Gold Rush: RCB Sold for ₹16,700 Crore, Rajasthan Royals Fetch Over ₹15,000 Crore in Mega Deals
Moneylife Digital Team
25 March 2026
The Indian Premier League (IPL) has entered a new phase of blockbuster valuations, with two major franchise sales, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Rajasthan Royals (RR), together commanding over US$3.4bn (billion) or around...
Could it be because the responsible officer does not want on his record that his case was flawed?
Could it be because he is trying to drag out the case for ulterior motives which have not surfaced as yet?
Perhaps if the responsible officer's promotion were to be linked to such cases which waste govt's time and money, then we may see an improvement in this matter.