False 498a complainants should be prosecuted and punished

The Judges have been successful in pushing a Bill that prevents/curtails any false and frivolous case against them.

Now, isn't the Indian Family too worthy of such a shield against misuse of law and false cases against them?. Especially when a false complaint from a law-misusing wife can put a whole family behind the bars and then lead to a protracted legal battle extending to 10 years or more(especially IPC 498a, wherein families including senior citizens, women, children, neighbours, friends, servants!, etc. are victimised by false complaints).

We should fight to make mandatory prosecution and punishment in-built into IPC 498a, with which the state will have to prosecute the complainants and punish them suitably, when a 498a case filed by them is found false and frivolous.

We should make the media aware first and then the judiciary(which has the power to revise laws) and then the law-makers/legislature.

************
Frivolous litigants should not be let off lightly: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Frivolous_litigants_should_not_be_let_off_lightly/articleshow/1323780.cms

Manoj Mitta[ 20 Jan, 2007 0057hrs IST. TIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

If judges do unto other cases as they would do unto cases against themselves, it would go a long way in deterring busybodies from filing frivolous cases. In the last session of Parliament, the government introduced a Bill breaking new ground in dealing with frivolous cases. The pity is that it does not cover all varieties of frivolous cases but only those that call into question the integrity of a judge. Section 26 of the Judges (Inquiry) Bill 2006, for the first time, imposes a penalty of imprisonment for filing a frivolous complaint. In terms of deterrence, this goes far beyond the measure of monetary penalties contained in some of the existing laws such as the civil procedure code and consumer protection Act. Since the Bill was drafted by a former SC judge (Justice M Jagannadha Rao), in consultation with two successive CJIs (Justices R C Lahoti and Y K Sabharwal), it betrays an anxiety on part of the judges to discourage people from filing frivolous cases when it comes to the admittedly sensitive issue of judicial accountability. The Bill lays down that if a complaint against a judge is found to be frivolous, the complainant is liable to be punished with imprisonment extending to one year. Adding teeth to this substantive provision, the Bill says that such an offender shall be tried summarily.

The proposal to escalate sanctions against frivolous litigants is welcome provided it does not smack of according preferential treatment to cases involving the interests of judges themselves. n fact, the precedent being set in the Judges (Inquiry) Bill should soon be followed up by introducing similar penalties in laws concerning people at large. For, frivolous cases do not undermine just the independence of judiciary; they also clog courts and needlessly embarrass people or institutions targeted by them. Clearly, the issue of frivolous cases concerns everybody. For all the outrage expressed from time to time by the SC and HC, the existing approach of slapping monetary penalties has proved ineffective in deterring publicity seekers or meddlesome persons from filing frivolous cases. This is not to suggest that monetary penalties should be abandoned and that imprisonment should be the preferred sentence in all frivolous cases. Rather, courts should have the option of resorting to either or both forms of penalties, depending on the magnitude of the case concerned.

There is also a need for Parliament to enhance the upper limits of monetary penalties. For instance, the maximum penalty of Rs 3,000 that could be imposed under the Civil Procedure Code is too meagre to deter frivolous litigants. Courts on their part need to display a greater willingness to enforce punitive provisions against frivolous cases. They have a record of letting off frivolous litigants lightly. The activism shown in recent times against those who commit perjury (lie under oath) should be extended to frivolous litigants as well. Superior courts should also set an example by not initiating or even entertaining frivolous PILs. Take the PIL on which one of the sitting judges of the SC had in his earlier avatar as a high court judge ordered special privileges for judges in the matter of traffic control regulations! The task before the government is equally clear-cut. Besides piloting the necessary amendments to introduce imprisonment as a penalty and enhance the quantum of fine for frivolous litigation in all spheres, the government has to mend its ways as a litigant. One of the major reasons for this dubious distinction is the tendency of bureaucrats to play it safe and contest every issue or file appeal in every case.

As a result, a lot of government cases turn out to be frivolous because they are pursued all the way to the SC without any cost benefit analysis and regardless of whether any principle is at stake or not. The government would be well advised to adopt Justice Sabharwal's recent suggestion to put in place an in-house mechanism to weed out cases that are avoidable. As he said, "It would save government's money and courts a large number of frivolous cases." After all, the system should not be concerned only about cases that affect judges personally.