Litigation isn’t good policy

English writer and humourist Jerome K Jerome (1859 –1927) once said, “It is always the best policy to speak the truth, unless, of course, you are an exceptionally good liar.”

If the law of perjury is strictly applied, most of the signatories to government affidavits would be behind the bars, a judge told me after his retirement.

Jerome’s words seem to apply aptly to the government, its instrumentalities and public sector undertakings (PSUs) that are the biggest litigants in the country.

To curb the tendency of rampant litigation among bureaucrats and senior officers of PSUs, the Union law minister announced a ‘litigation policy’ with a laudable purpose of reducing the litigation span from 15 years to three years.
It specifically says that litigation between PSUs and between the government is “causing great concern”.  Every effort must be made to prevent such litigation. Before initiating such litigation, the matter must be placed before the highest authority in the PSU.
“It will be his responsibility to endeavour to see whether the litigation can be avoided. If litigation cannot be avoided, then alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation must be considered,” it adds.
However, BEML chairman VRS Natarajan’s disclosure that “we” will sue former army chief, Gen (retd) VK Singh for his certain observations regarding Tatra truck has put the litigation policy to test.

It can’t be ignored that Gen Singh made the remarks when he was serving the army and that the CBI is already seized of the allegation that he was offered bribe for clearing a file relating to the truck.

Could he be sued for defaming BEML, a state agency, at the cost of the exchequer? Mind you, the litigation policy suggests arbitration as the mechanism for resolving a dispute.
Legal experts feel Natarajan’s statement is unprecedented. Raising his brow at the defamation issue notice, Delhi high court judge (retd) RS Sodhi says a PSU “can’t shell out even a single penny for this kind of legal venture”.

Agreeing with him, lawyer RK Anand objects to the notice by a PSU to a senior public servant (army chief). “How can he (Natarajan) waste public money on such a legal exercise? Natarajan is a public servant and he’s governed by the service rules. A defamation notice issued by him, in my view, violates the government regulations,” he adds.

Though constitutional lawyer PP Rao feels the issue is “unprecedented”, he doesn’t find any “legal infirmity” in a PSU chief engaging a lawyer to issue a defamation notice to a head of the government organisation.

Would the litigation policy be of any help or is it also like any other ambitious wish that will remain unfulfilled?
It may be pointed out that way back in 1988, the law commission headed by DA Desai also advised the PSUs and government not to ‘litigate’ but ‘arbitrate’.