Public authorities must be fair, responsive, and transparent in all dealings, and silence, procedural evasion, or avoidance by senior officials is wholly inconsistent with the constitutional trust reposed in them.
In decisions such as Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited 2025 INSC 1365., and Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512, the Court has reaffirmed that government bodies and their officers must avoid:
• Filing frivolous or vindictive litigation, and
• Opposing legitimate claims on hyper-technical or procedural grounds.
The Court has categorically held that each public officer will be personally accountable for such misconduct.
Personal Accountability of Public Servants
This judicial warning establishes that public servants may now face personal consequences that extend far beyond routine administrative action. Any violation of the Supreme Court’s directions, or conduct inconsistent with constitutional obligations, can expose the concerned officer to serious individual liability.
Consequences include:
1. Contempt of Court
Public servants may face
• Civil contempt proceedings under Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for disobedience of judicial directions or obstruction of justice where punishment is six months imprisonment and also the officers like Dy. Collector were demoted to the post of Tahsildar. Tata Mohan Rao, Vs. S. Venkateswarlu, 2025 INSC 678.
2. Personal Financial Liability
Officers can be directed to
• Pay compensation personally to affected citizens, without the State bearing the burden. [In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291]
3. Adverse Judicial and Service Record Remarks
Courts may record
• Adverse observations on the conduct of the errant officer, which may
o become part of their service record,
o impact promotions, postings, and career progression.
4. Criminal Prosecution & Departmental Action
The officer may be subjected to:
• Criminal proceedings, wherever their actions amount to an offence;
• Departmental/disciplinary action, including penalties under service rules.
5. Suspension or Demotion
Courts possess the authority to order:
• Immediate suspension, or
• Demotion from the post, in cases of serious misconduct or willful disobedience.
This jurisprudence marks a significant shift in the legal landscape, placing individual accountability on public servants for misuse of authority, arbitrary decision-making, and irresponsible litigation. It reinforces the constitutional expectation that public officers must act with integrity, fairness, and a sense of duty, embodying the role of model litigants and faithful trustees of public power.
The Court held that silence, procedural evasion, and indifference by senior officers of public authorities are inconsistent with the constitutional trust reposed in them under Articles 14 and 298 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited 2025 INSC 1365 it is ruled as under;
“19.1. As held in State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another39and Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal40, the State must act as a model litigant – fair, responsive, and transparent in its dealings. Silence or procedural evasion by senior officers is inconsistent with the constitutional trust reposed in public authorities. It is unfortunate that such apathy had to be defended before a constitutional court as an administrative prerogative.
19.2. Although this is a fit case for imposing costs, we refrain from doing so, but issue a stern warning to the then Managing Director of the respondent company, BRPNNL. Public Officers are custodians of public faith, not mere administrators. Any repetition of such neglect may invite adverse remarks or even personal accountability. The officer is advised to reflect upon the responsibilities of public office and ensure that such indifference does not recur.”
In the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512 it is ruled as under;
“5. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers are brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.
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 [(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, 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. The layout on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957.’ ”
8. In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International [(1979) 4 SCC 176] this Court held : (SCC p. 177, para 2)
“2. … It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.”
9. In a three-Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh [(1985) 3 SCC 737] this Court held : (SCC p. 741, para 3)
“3. … The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen.”
10. Unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stems from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:
(i) All claims against the Government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land.
(ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the court and secure a decision.
The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of Governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision-making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision-making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision-making to courts and tribunals.
11. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation. But it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigations. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations have been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts and tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.”
State Must Act as a Model Litigant, Fair, Responsive, and Transparent
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the established principle (citing State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another and Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal) that:
“The State must act as a model litigant – fair, responsive, and transparent in its dealings.”
This principle is now reinforced as a fundamental constitutional obligation applicable to all public sector undertakings, government departments, and public servants in their dealings with private parties in contractual matters.
Deliberate Indifference in Public Office Is Unfair Under Constitutional Law
The Court stated that it is “unfortunate that such apathy had to be defended before a constitutional court as an administrative prerogative.” This indicates that public servants can no longer hide behind administrative discretion to justify negligence, indifference, or deliberate delay in fulfilling contractual obligations.
1. IMPLICATIONS AND IMPACT
1. Public Sector Undertakings Must Be Model Litigants
This judgment establishes a binding precedent that:
Public sector entities cannot use bureaucratic procedures or administrative silence as a defense strategy in commercial disputes.
Delay, silence, and procedural evasion in arbitration, contract disputes, or litigation will be viewed as violation of constitutional duties.
Public authorities must respond promptly to notices, appeals, and requests under contractual clauses.
2. Personal Liability for Public Servants
For the first time, the Supreme Court has explicitly indicated that public servant (including managing directors of PSUs) can face person accountability for repeated indifference, moving beyond organisational liability to individual responsibility.
