We would however like to refer to two aspects of the order of the High Court relating to costs. The first is, whether a court, having reached a conclusion that a party deserves to be prosecuted for perjury, should let him off with what it considers to be a stiff penalty by way of costs, on the ground that courts are overburdened with work. We propose to leave open for the present, this question involving moral and ethical issues.
10. The second aspect relates to the recipient of the costs. In para 38 of the impugned judgment, the High Court specifically stated that it had decided to saddle the parties with heavy costs to be paid to the state which spends money on judicial infrastructure. Having said so, in para 39, the High Court directed that the costs should be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The High Court Legal Services Committee, a statutory authority under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is not the `state' that spends money on providing judicial infrastructure, referred in the earlier para. Once the Court held that costs had to be paid to the state, it should have directed payment of the costs to the state and not the High Court Legal Services Committee. No litigant should be made to feel that heavy costs are being levied in some cases by Judges to create a corpus or expense fund for the High Court Legal Services Committee or the State Legal Services Authority. While levy of an uniform token sum, as costs payable to the Legal Service Authority/Committee by way of a deterrent fine, in regard to non-compliance with procedural requirements, delays in re-presentation of papers etc. may not be objectionable, levy of huge amounts as costs in selected cases, made payable to the Legal Service Authorities, may invite adverse comments and evoke hostility to legal services in general. We have also come across cases of costs being levied and made payable to some non-party charitable organizations. Levy of such costs should be avoided.
11. The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee when it receives the sum of Rs. Two Lakhs as costs from the parties, shall make over the same to the state government as directed in para 38 of the impugned judgment. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Delhi Legal Services Committee, for compliance.
Reportable
Supreme Court of India
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr on 9 January, 2009
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal
Citation: 2009(2) SCC 656