CAT says delayed responses eroding public faith in justice system

Srinagar, Sep 19: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar Thursday took a serious note of delayed replies filed by the government, saying that in the absence of “replies” petitions remain pending for years, which burdens the courts with unnecessary litigation as well as the exchequer.

A bench of M S Latif, Member (J), expressed displeasure over the government’s remiss to file the “responses” after it noted that the Health and Medical Education Department displayed a “casual attitude” in not complying with the court directions about filing reply to a plea.

“In the first instance, I would like to request the Commissioner Secretary, Health and Medical Education to look into the delay or not filing timely replies before the court and also issue directions upon the concerned Legal Cell of the department to expedite the process of filing replies as ultimately cases have to be decided on merits, but in the absence of reply despite ample opportunities, petitions remain pending for years together, which not only burdens the court with unnecessary litigation but also burdens the exchequer, which needs to be deprecated,” the CAT said.

The court observed, “It would be highly appreciable if a review meeting is called regarding cases in which despite ample opportunities, the department has failed to file their response so that the cases are expeditiously decided.”

The court said: “Justice delayed is justice denied and delay (is) only attributable to the State.”

At the same time, the court directed its Registry to send a copy of its order to the Chief Secretary as well as the Secretary Health and Medical Education Department.

The court issued the directions while hearing a plea by Dr Showkat Amin who had sought the court’s intervention through his plea.

The court observed that the petition was filed in 2022 and no reply had been filed by the authorities despite ample opportunities.

It noted that vide order dated April 25, 2024, the H&ME Department was granted one mercy chance to file the reply.

“The casual attitude of the respondents in not adhering and in not complying with the court directions has been viewed very seriously,” the court said.

The court observed that in terms of the order dated May 13, 2024, three weeks was granted to respondents in the interest of justice as a mercy chance to file the reply.

“However, respondents have not filed the response,” it said. “In the absence of detailed response, the court is left with no option but to decide the matter based on material available on file that too un-rebutted and in absence of proper response”.

In response to a submission by the petitioner’s counsel, the court directed the authorities to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on October 19, 2020, following the rules.

“This court would express its deep anguish and displeasure that despite umpteen opportunities, respondents have failed to file their response, such an attitude of the respondents is certainly going to erode the faith of the common people in this temple of justice,” the court said and listed the matter for further hearing on October 17.