END THE CULTURE OF ENDLESS PENDENCY: A CALL TO EXCLUDE STALE AND UNCONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS

The Indian legal system is overwhelmed not merely because of fresh litigation but because of the continued survival of thousands of proceedings which should have reached finality long ago. The problem is particularly acute in tax, customs, GST, service tax and revenue matters where show cause notices, adjudication proceedings, appeals, remand proceedings and recovery actions remain pending for years, sometimes decades.

The law recognises that justice delayed is justice denied. Unfortunately, administrative and quasi-judicial authorities frequently proceed on the assumption that a matter can remain pending indefinitely without consequence. Such an approach is contrary to constitutional governance, legal certainty and the rule of law.

A citizen cannot be expected to defend allegations forever. Evidence disappears, records are lost, witnesses become unavailable and memories fade. The burden imposed by endless pendency itself becomes a punishment even before adjudication.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that where a statute prescribes a time frame, the authorities must ordinarily adhere to it. Even where no express limitation is prescribed, powers must be exercised within a reasonable period. An authority cannot keep a sword hanging over the head of a citizen indefinitely.

The principle is not merely procedural. It flows directly from Article 14 of the Constitution. Arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality. A proceeding which remains dormant for years and is suddenly revived without justification is inherently arbitrary.

In indirect tax matters, the situation is alarming. Thousands of legacy disputes under Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs continue to occupy administrative and judicial resources despite the introduction of GST. Similar backlogs are accumulating under GST. Large numbers of show cause notices remain unadjudicated long after the period contemplated by law. Appeals remain pending for years. Remanded matters often re-enter the system only to become dormant once again.

The time has come for a bold policy intervention.

Every proceeding that has remained inactive beyond the statutory period, or beyond a reasonable period where no statutory period exists, should stand excluded from the pendency figures and be treated as liable for closure unless the department demonstrates exceptional circumstances for its continuation.

The burden should shift to the authority, not the citizen.

A national review exercise should identify:

1. Show cause notices pending beyond the prescribed period.
2. Adjudication proceedings not concluded within reasonable time.
3. Appeals remaining dormant for years without effective hearing.
4. Remanded matters where no consequential action has been taken.
5. Recovery proceedings based on unenforceable or stale demands.

Such matters should be placed before a designated authority for closure.

The objective is not to confer an undeserved benefit upon any litigant. The objective is to restore credibility to the justice delivery system. Pendency statistics are often misleading because they include matters which have ceased to be actively litigated. Removing stale proceedings would present a more accurate picture of the actual workload and permit courts and departments to focus on live disputes.

Studies on judicial pendency show that backlog continues to increase and that historical accumulation of cases is a major contributor to systemic delay. Meaningful reduction of pendency therefore requires elimination of inactive and obsolete proceedings rather than merely increasing disposal targets.

Finality is an essential component of justice. A legal system that cannot conclude disputes within a reasonable period risks losing public confidence. The State possesses vast powers of investigation, adjudication and recovery. With those powers comes a corresponding obligation to act promptly.

The era of perpetual proceedings must end.

A stale dispute is not a pending dispute.

It is time to exclude such cases from the system and close them forever.

----

By Adv. G. Jayaprakash Former Central Officer & Advocate