Collusive Litigation
The Supreme Court of India has recently taken suo motu cognisance of collusive litigation involving officials of the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). This action concerns 3 acres 33 guntas of land in Bengaluru North Taluk. The court’s intervention marks the misuse of legal processes by statutory authorities. It has directed the registry to initiate a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to ensure justice.
What is collusive litigation?
Collusive litigation refers to lawsuits where parties cooperate instead of opposing each other genuinely. The parties work together to achieve a preferred outcome or to challenge laws without real dispute. Such litigation undermines the adversarial system by presenting a false conflict. It may also be used to bypass legislative processes or manipulate courts.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
Recently, the Supreme Court addressed a plea to quash an FIR related to cheating and other offences. While allowing the plea, the court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to take suo motu cognisance of collusive litigation. The bench observed that common citizens were denied benefits from the land acquisition. The court noted the collusion between BDA officials and appellants to manipulate the judicial process.
Judicial Approach to Collusive Litigation in India
Indian courts can set aside collusive decrees if the challenger is not a party to the decree and proves collusion or fraud. The High Courts have powers under Article 227 to intervene in such matters. However, parties involved in the collusion cannot challenge the decree. The burden of proof lies on the party seeking to invalidate the decree. Courts may also set aside decrees on finding collusion even without a specific prayer for such relief.
Legal Procedures and Guidelines Followed
The Supreme Court referred to the mandatory procedures laid down in Priyanka Srivastava versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2015). It stated that non-filing of supporting affidavits before Magistrates is a curable defect. Such defects must be rectified before substantive orders are passed. Failure to comply can lead to quashing of orders or proceedings. The court confirmed that simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings on the same allegations are permissible.
Implications
The court’s strict stance sends a warning to statutory bodies against misusing legal processes. It emphasises the judiciary’s role in safeguarding public interest and preventing abuse of litigation. The case underlines the need for transparency and accountability in land acquisition and related matters. It also strengthens the legal framework to detect and deter collusive litigation.
| Related | |
|---|---|
