The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has stressed the need for government departments to be more diligent and prompt when seeking legal remedies, and it should not be acceptable for them to offer typical excuses for delays. The Court emphasised that condoning delay should be the exception rather than the rule, and it shouldn’t be used as an anticipated advantage for government departments. In many cases, the courts have granted them relief based on certain grounds. However, the Division Bench of learned judges correctly pointed out that repeatedly making such pleas as a matter of right is not acceptable.
In today’s digital age, where virtually all services are available online and the government is actively working towards paperless offices, The efforts made in this direction have been widely appreciated by citizens, as they save valuable time by eliminating unnecessary obstacles. It’s imperative that the Legal Cell of the administration also show urgency in filing timely responses or objections. While courts can accommodate certain cases on compassionate grounds, this cannot be applied to every case as a matter of right. The court’s observation that the impugned judgement was issued on February 11, 2022, underscores the importance of timely actions. It’s indeed perplexing that the Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs took over nine months to request Senior AAG’s filing of the present appeal. Even after that, the appeal was filed on January 11, 2023, resulting in an inexcusable delay of 275 days from the date of the impugned judgment. Such a delay cannot be justified as in this case, and it highlights the need for government departments to respect legal timelines and expedite their actions in the digital age when efficiency and timely service are paramount.
It is the administration’s responsibility to address court cases promptly. Pending court cases can be a significant impediment to development and other decisions made in the interest of the citizens. This backlog can affect various aspects of governance, from employee promotions to major infrastructure projects. Despite the issuance of numerous notifications by the administration to emphasise the need for timely resolution of court cases, it appears that some departments and legal cells are not taking these directives seriously. In this case, where land compensation was continuously denied despite court orders, it becomes evident that accountability within the department and the legal cell is crucial. The High Court’s decision to reject the department’s plea was in the interest of justice, but it does raise questions about the department’s practises and adherence to legal timelines.
Indeed, there may be other genuine cases within government departments where delayed filings could result in significant losses to the government or hinder public welfare initiatives. It’s the responsibility of the administration to ensure that such lapses are addressed and accountability is established. To promote efficiency and ensure that court cases do not impede progress, it’s essential for higher authorities to scrutinise the processes and practises within government departments, including the legal cells, and take appropriate measures to rectify any deficiencies. Timely and efficient resolution of court cases is not only in the interest of the government but also in the interest of the public, as it ensures that justice is delivered promptly and that development and other initiatives can proceed without unnecessary delays.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
