M J Antony: Red tape in the steel frame

Delayed appeals by the revenue department causes losses that exceed those estimated for the spectrum fiddle

The affidavit of the prime minister’s office in the 2G spectrum scam has shown how the files moved back and forth in the law ministry, ultimately causing embarrassment to the powers that be. Simultaneously, another spectacle was unfolding in the chief justice’s court last week where the judge was visibly upset over the fatal delays brought about by the same bureaucratic brethren in filing appeals in revenue cases. The consequences of the inordinate delays, sometimes for years, are the dismissal of government’s appeals filed beyond the deadline and loss of public revenue. The cost to the exchequer would perhaps be expressed in figures that extend one inch more than the notional loss due to the spectrum fiddle.

The bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia had ample reason to be displeased. A few months ago, he had warned the revenue departments and law officers that he would not tolerate such unreasonable delays. He had asked the departments of income tax, customs and excise to explain exceptionally prolonged time lag between the judgment in which they had lost and the filing of the appeal. The court had asked for affidavits to justify the delays in several cases. The judges hoped that this would shake the officials in the departments and the legal advisors. Affidavits were filed, of course, but the judicial action treated only the symptoms. The deep-seated malady was not easy to be cured.

The court was expecting positive results, but there was a relapse of the old syndrome. Appeals were being moved after more than a year, much beyond the time set by the Limitation Act. The amounts involved were often in crores of rupees. The chief justice remarked that there was some improvement earlier when he sought explanation from the departments concerned. But when he suspended such action, things would slip back to the bad old ways.

He pointed out that such delays did not occur when small amounts were involved. But when the dispute is over huge amounts, the delay is proportionately long. He said that he might call the director (vigilance) to the court to explain the delays when vast amounts were involved. The judge also asked the attorney general to look into the issue. To make an example, he issued notices in some gross cases in which the revenue departments slumbered and called for action taken reports in the earlier ones.

This problem has become chronic with the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Appeals are filed fairly on time in the high courts. But it is at the apex level that the delay is exorbitant. This results in suspicion whether it is just sloth that leads to this situation or there is a deliberate stratagem behind it. A fair guess is that it is both. Either way, it has become almost incurable, despite the proliferation in the numbers of additional solicitors general, luxurious facilities provided to them to solve the problem and sinecures for several more babus.

The Supreme Court is not unaware of the shadow play going on at several levels. It has made its inference clear in several judgments. In the case State of Jharkhand vs Krishan Pradhan, it noted that the usual explanation given by the departments concerned and the government in general was that the file moved from one table to another or the approval sought from the higher authority took considerable time.

In hard-hitting terms unusual for the Supreme Court, it dissected the malaise: “We feel that the beneficiary of the judgment may be hand-in-glove with the officials in the government department who deal with the files, and files are suppressed for a long period, and then the appeal before the high court or the Supreme Court is filed after a long delay to get the appeal dismissed on the ground of delay. Huge amounts of public money or public property may be involved and the government will be the loser on the technical point of limitation in such cases. This racket has been going on for a long time. Now the time has come that this racket is ended and the officials responsible given severe punishment.”

It is easier said than done. The judges have only moral authority and no arms to enforce their orders. Their directions have to be implemented by the same people who scheme the strategies in the corridors of power. Prime ministers and chief justices come and go with lost hopes and tarnished images, but the “steel frame” endures.