Asif Rathore
In an ideal world, the courtroom is where truth finds shelter and justice is restored. But increasingly, those who approach the system with honesty find themselves burdened, delayed, and often disillusioned. They wait years, follow procedures, and comply with every court direction, only to discover that the legal process rewards tactics over truth, and aggression over integrity.
We are witnessing a growing crisis within our legal system: where genuine litigants are being dragged through the same procedural trenches as those who come to Court not for justice, but to settle scores.
Fake litigation isn’t just about filing false cases, it’s about turning the entire system into a tool for harassment. Civil suits are filed with no intent of pursuing them to judgment. Criminal complaints are lodged purely to intimidate or settle personal vendettas. Even simple legal notices are weaponized to provoke fear and negotiation, rather than legal remedy.
It’s no surprise that courts are flooded, not with genuine grievances, but with ego battles disguised as lawsuits.
Imagine a person who has honestly come to court to seek justice, only to be looked upon as just another litigant trying to take revenge. This is the tragedy we are breeding: where sincerity is drowned in suspicion, and genuine grievances are dismissed as tactics.
This abuse is not just anecdotal, it’s systemic. Many litigants face prolonged legal harassment simply because someone is misusing the process. For example:
Delays in filing written statements: Under the Commercial Courts Act, defendants are bound to file written statements within 30 to 120 days under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, failing which their right can be forfeited. But litigants routinely misuse Article 227 jurisdiction to approach High Courts and challenge this, defeating the very objective of speedy commercial trials, and leaving plaintiffs trapped in endless delay.
Post-decree obstruction: Even after years of litigation, once a decree is passed, executing it becomes a new legal battle. CPC is invoked with concocted objections. Third-party claims are filed. Endless adjournments are sought, all to frustrate the decree-holder who thought the judgment was the end of the fight.
These tactics break not only the timelines of justice, but the trust people place in it.
How the Courts Are Responding—and Struggling
Courts have started calling out such misuse. The Supreme Court and several High Courts have repeatedly emphasized that legal process cannot be allowed to become an instrument of oppression.
For instance:
- In a matter the Supreme Court observed: “A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all facts. If he withholds vital facts or tries to mislead the court, his petition is liable to be dismissed.”
- Courts have also held that abuse of process, especially to delay proceedings, is actionable and must be deterred through CPC (Compensatory Costs) and even perjury proceedings under criminal law.
But despite such precedents, implementation remains uneven. Judicial sympathy often bends toward “giving one more chance”. and the honest party continues to pay the price.
What Can Be Done
It is high time the judiciary, the Bar, and the legislature collectively say: Enough.
Courts must follow procedural laws strictly. Statutory timelines and procedural mandates—, exist not as formalities, but as safeguards against abuse. When lawyers cite a specific legal provision, courts should not casually say,,like “Ab detail hai time, kya ho jaayega?” (It’s just a detail—what harm will some extra time do?). This mindset weakens the structure of enforceable law and emboldens those using delay as a strategy.
Discretion must be exercised with discipline. Judicial discretion should not become a license to bypass rules, especially when one party is clearly benefiting from prolonged delay. Sympathy should not override statutory command.
Courts must also use their inherent powers (Section 151 CPC and Section 482 CrPC) to filter out abuse and protect genuine litigants from procedural harassment.
Lawyers must avoid becoming tools of vengeance and must counsel clients against filing strategic but dishonest litigation. Ethical lawyering is not idealism, it is a professional obligation.
Lawmakers must re-examine how procedural laws can be tightened, especially around execution delays, false pleadings, and frivolous interlocutory appeals.
The public must be educated that the courtroom is not a place for ego wars, it is a last resort for redressal, not revenge.
Conclusion: Justice Abused is Injustice Multiplied
Each false claim filed, each procedural provision twisted, each execution delayed is not just an inconvenience to the opposite party—it’s an insult to the Constitution, to the rule of law, and to the honest litigant.
Justice delayed is justice denied—but justice abused is injustice multiplied.
The Indian legal system doesn’t need more laws, it needs the courage and discipline to uphold the ones we already have.
The writer is an advocate by profession and can be reached at aasifrathore@gmail.com
