Restoring Justice through Compliance and Fixing Accountability

The focus must shift from merely securing judgments to restoring justice through assured compliance by fixing accountability.

Every adjudication by a court of law essentially involves both an application of law and an element of empathy towards a litigant. The object is to cause a real-life impact on the life and living condition of an aggrieved citizen knocking the doors of the court. This real-life impact comes only when the judgments are implemented evenly with equal empathy.

Ideally speaking, justice is not complete with the pronouncement of a judgment; it is complete only when the judgment is implemented. The mental fatigue of a litigant in the journey to justice does not end with a favourable judgment — more often than not, it continues indefinitely. The trauma of a litigant, already stung by an illegal order, is compounded when, despite securing a favourable order from the court, he is subjected to further agony due to delayed fruits of litigation caused by protracted institutional proceedings, contempt cases, avoidable appeals and, not infrequently, repeated writ petitions. The end result is justice delayed, diluted, or even denied.

This situation calls for an endeavour to decode the factors behind the growing disconnection between judicial determination and executive compliance and to identify a viable way forward. At stake is not merely individual relief, but the restoration of the Rule of Law and the faith of the litigant in the efficacy of the judiciary as an arbiter and protector of citizens’ rights.

The focus, therefore, must shift from merely securing judgments to restoring justice through assured compliance by fixing accountability. The need is also to revive the commendation contained in vintage judgments, which have assumed renewed relevance in the present context. The observations of the Supreme Court, decades ago, creating liability of public servants and the State for breach of human and fundamental rights, are now fit to be applied with greater rigour.

The problem of non-implementation

Non-implementation of court orders is seldom due to lack of clarity in judicial directions or timelines. Even where compliance is ultimately made, it is often effected belatedly, almost as a matter of routine, without any courtesy of seeking extension of time. Judicial tolerance cannot extend to treating such belated compliance as normal, particularly when the litigant has already endured prolonged hardship despite holding a binding order in his favour. In such situations, responsibility of the public servant concerned must be fixed, not only through departmental proceedings but also by creating personal liability towards the affected litigant.

The pain caused by non-implementation is not confined to the individual litigant awaiting the fruits of justice. It has wider institutional consequences by diverting judicial attention from serious and urgent matters involving substantial questions of law and wide ramifications. Critical cases — such as those concerning pensioners, widows, under-trial prisoners, and victims of human rights violations — are compelled to wait due to unnecessary and repetitive litigation. This inevitably results in a growing perception of inefficacy of the justice delivery system and erosion of public trust in the judiciary and the Rule of Law.

Non-governance and avoidable litigation

Judgments of the Supreme Court are required to be acted upon, and all administrative and judicial authorities are constitutionally bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution of India. In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha¹, the Supreme Court held that once an issue has been adjudicated and the legal position settled, the benefit thereof must be extended to all similarly situated persons without compelling each individual to seek identical relief through separate litigation.

Despite this clear mandate, non-governance and non-performance by public servants continue to generate avoidable litigation. In a large number of cases, adjudication has already been rendered and what remains is merely the application of settled law. Had such decisions been implemented administratively, these matters would never have travelled to courts. Instead, executive inaction or deliberate omission compels citizens to repeatedly approach Constitutional Courts even for settled issues, thereby choking the judicial system and undermining finality of judgments.

Judicial overload

Constitutional Courts are the protectors of Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. It is executed through the tool of judicial review which, forming part of the basic structure, extends not only to adjudication of individual rights but also to determination of the validity of laws. The resultant judgments delivered by Constitutional Courts, whether operating in rem or in personam, are thus constitutes integral to the maintenance of constitutional discipline to the extent of protecting and enforcing the fundamental and legal rights of a citizen. The process in the Court ends up with judicial determination and direction issued thereunder leaving the rest part of justice delivery to the executive under the presumption of respect to judicial verdict and empathy towards the pain of a litigant. This requires basic sensitisation of the bureaucracy towards the positioning of Constitutional Courts and the duty cast upon them.

Executive non-sensitisation to judicial directions results in multiple rounds of litigation, reducing Constitutional Courts to supervisory, if not executing, forums. The State Litigation Policy mandates pre-litigation redressal of grievances, yet this obligation is routinely neglected. At times, administrative authorities deliberately delay decision-making even in matters governed by settled law, as if seeking judicial endorsement for inaction. Such abdication of statutory and constitutional responsibility amounts to a fraud upon the Constitution and burdens courts with matters that require obedience, not adjudication.

Judicial response: Accountability, compensation and misfeasance

It is no longer res integra that public servants are entrusted with increasing discretionary power, accompanied by corresponding statutory duties to be scrupulously discharged. The concept of public servant as trustee and arbitrary action as breach of trust or misfeasance in public office has been firmly established in judicial discourse for decades.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that mere declaration of rights is insufficient unless accompanied by effective enforcement. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar², compensation was recognised as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, marking a departure from traditional notions of sovereign immunity. This principle was reaffirmed in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa³, where compensation was treated as a constitutional obligation of the State.

In LDA v. M.K. Gupta⁴, the Court held that arbitrary and negligent actions of public authorities warrant compensation not merely to redress individual injury but also to discipline administrative functioning. The doctrine was further strengthened in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh⁵, where delay and inaction were held to amount to misfeasance in public office. In Common Cause v. Union of India⁶, read with the second judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India⁷, the Court emphasised that holders of public office must act fairly, evenly and without favouritism. Subsequent review proceedings judgments reported in Common Cause v. Union of India⁸, modified certain directions relating to exemplary damages, but there was no dilution of the underlying principles concerning public trust and accountability for arbitrary conduct.

Fixing liability to restore the Rule of Law

There are three recurring and inter-linked anchors that systematically choke the justice delivery system. First, failure of State authorities to apply settled law to similarly situated cases compels litigants to approach courts even in routine matters already adjudicated, generating wholly avoidable litigation. Second, binding judicial orders are not complied with within stipulated timelines and are acted upon only after contempt proceedings are initiated, reflecting institutional indifference to constitutional commands. Third, authorities proceed to pass illegal or ultra vires orders in breach of statute, often negligently and without due application of mind, thereby creating fresh causes of action.

The problem, therefore, is not merely pendency but accountability. Public power is exercised as a trust reposed by the Constitution, and breach of that trust through deliberate inaction or defiance of judicial mandates must attract consequences. The recent decision in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board⁹ reinforces that State authorities are to be treated at par with ordinary litigants and that administrative excuses cannot justify breach of statutory timelines. The entire period of delay must be explained, and institutional lethargy cannot be legitimised by judicial indulgence.

Conclusion

Fixing accountability of erring elements within the bureaucracy is thus the key to decongesting the judicial system. The idea fully aligns with the settled law. The law on personal liability of public servants is too well-settled to require reiteration, and forced litigation itself constitutes individual suffering, which by itself constitutes sufficient real time situation to fix personal liability. This may be by way of exemplary damage/compensation, both against the responsible officers as well as the State. While no compensation can fully remedy such harm, even the compensation, as only a palliative recognised by the Supreme Court in the Rudul Sah case¹⁰, serves to discipline administration and restore public confidence. The bottom line of the entire exercise is that an effective execution of judicial orders is essential not only for individual relief but also for restoration of the Rule of Law and the credibility of the justice delivery system in the eyes of the common citizen.