SC calls out ‘luxury litigation’, ends 11-year legal fight and imposes ₹5 lakh fine on both parties

The Supreme Court has strongly disapproved of the practice of influential litigants engaging in “luxury litigation”, observing that prolonged legal disputes delay the hearing of genuine cases. The court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh each on actress Rehana Khan and her lawyer Rizwan Siddique after rejecting their plea in a long-running dispute.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the two parties had approached various forums, including the Bar Council of India, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, over the past 11 years. According to a report by ANI, the bench said both sides had contributed significantly to prolonging the dispute.

“Each of these parties has come to us complaining of a wrong, and each has been the author of a good part of it. Between them, they have occupied the time of the Bar Council, an HC and this court for 11 years,” the bench observed.

ALSO READ: '₹20 recovery can't...': After 30 years, Supreme Court acquits 2 Gujarat govt employees in ₹120 bribe case

‘That time belonged to other litigants’

The court said the time spent hearing the matter could have been used to provide relief to litigants with genuine grievances. It recorded its “strong disapproval” of the conduct of both parties and imposed the costs on each of them.

“That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for relief they genuinely needed. We record our strong disapproval of the conduct of both. In view of the conduct of each party, we find it fit to impose costs,” the bench said, as quoted by the Times of India.

The judges also criticised the parties for allegedly relying on suppression of facts, embellishments and afterthoughts while seeking relief. The bench said both sides had appeared before the court expecting a favourable ruling, but neither approached the proceedings with “clean hands”.

Court questions parties’ conduct 

The bench highlighted that both parties had approached the court with a confident expectation of vindication, despite the record containing allegations and claims that had to be carefully examined. The court observed that suppression of facts, embellishment and afterthought appeared to be common features of the dispute.

CAN READ: Supreme Court flags social media platforms over POCSO reporting compliance, seeks Centre’s response

“Every fact of consequence has had to be prised out of a record in which suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the common currency of both sides. The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making,” the bench said, as reported by ToI.

The judges further remarked, “We say at the outset, and give our reasons in what follows, that neither the appellant nor the respondent leaves this court with credit.”

Court refuses to be drawn into ‘theatre’

Although the bench acknowledged that the case record was compelling, it said the dispute had been created and prolonged by the parties themselves. The court made it clear that the judicial process could not be used to settle personal scores, repair damaged reputations or gain an advantage from a self-created controversy.

“A court is not an auditorium, and the drama of a case is no measure of its merit,” the bench said. It added that neither the appellant nor the respondent would leave the Supreme Court “with credit” after examining the conduct of both sides.

READ THIS: Bar Council chief MK Mishra gets 15-day ultimatum to resign over fund diversion, graft allegations