This Court, has time and again held, that the State should act as a model litigant. In this respect, we can gainfully refer to the following observations made by this Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal MANU/SC/1817/2009 : (2010) 1 SCC 512:
6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.
7. In Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India [MANU/SC/0270/1973 : (1974) 3 SCC 554 : 1974 SCC (L & S) 89] this Court extracted with approval the following statement [from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court (P.P. Abubacker case [Ed.: P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India MANU/KE/0029/1972 : AIR 1972 Ker 103 : ILR (1971) 2 Ker 490 : 1971 Ker LJ 723] AIR pp. 107-08, para 5)] : (SCC p. 562, para 25)
25.... '5.... The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2020
Decided On: 14.02.2020
Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.A. Bobde, C.J.I., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ.
