The Supreme Court of India took the Union government to task on Wednesday, labeling it the nation’s “biggest litigant” and imposing a fine of Rs 25,000. The rebuke came as a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a High Court order that reinstated a dismissed CISF constable.
The court expressed sharp frustration over the government’s tendency to prolong legal battles even when lower courts have already provided clear relief in minor matters.
The Case: 11 Days of Absence and a Family Wedding
The legal battle centered on a CISF constable who was terminated after 10 years of service. The government’s case against him rested on two main pillars:
-
Unauthorised Absence: The constable was away for 11 days. While he was on sanctioned medical leave, he was not found at his residence during an inspection.
-
Alleged Misconduct: He was accused of helping the daughter of a colleague travel from Mumbai to Raipur to marry his younger brother.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had previously ruled the punishment of dismissal to be grossly disproportionate. The court noted that the woman involved had no grievances and had indeed married the constable’s brother.
“Who is the Biggest Litigant?”
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the irony of the government complaining about judicial backlogs while simultaneously flooding the system with appeals over minor disciplinary issues.
“We have been shouting. Keep aside your argument. Pendency, pendency; who is the biggest litigant?” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The bench suggested that the government should implement a protocol where, if a High Court finds a punishment disproportionate and grants relief, the matter should not automatically be escalated to the Supreme Court.
The Ruling at a Glance
| Feature | Details |
| Penalty Imposed | Rs 25,000 fine on the Union Government |
| Core Issue | Dismissal of a constable for an 11-day absence |
| SC Observation | Government must stop pursuing “unnecessary litigation” |
| Final Verdict | SLP dismissed; High Court order for reinstatement upheld |
A Human Perspective on Discipline
Justice Nagarathna also touched upon the human element of the case, noting that the constable was dealing with a sensitive family situation involving an elopement.
“Do you know the tension of a family if there is an elopement? He had to set right his family, get them married, and he returned after that,” the Justice noted, defending the constable’s decision to prioritize his family’s stability during his brief absence.
Despite the Union’s counsel arguing against the payment of “back wages” (pay for the time he was out of service), the Supreme Court remained firm, dismissing the petition entirely with costs to discourage similar future filings.
