Frivolous Litigation and Costs: Are Courts Finally Getting Serious?

Introduction

Frivolous litigation has long been recognised as one of the primary causes of judicial backlog in India. Courts have repeatedly lamented the tendency of litigants—private parties and even the State—to initiate or prolong proceedings with little regard for merit, judicial time, or public resources. While statutory provisions empowering courts to impose costs have existed for decades, their enforcement has historically been timid.

Recent judicial trends, however, indicate a shift towards stricter scrutiny and meaningful imposition of costs. This raises an important question: Are Indian courts finally getting serious about deterring frivolous litigation?

Understanding Frivolous Litigation

Frivolous litigation refers to legal proceedings that are:

• Filed without a reasonable legal basis,

• Intended to harass, delay, or pressure the opposite party,

• Repetitive or re-litigative in nature despite settled issues, or

• Clearly barred by law or binding precedent.

Such litigation not only burdens the judiciary but also erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Statutory Framework for Imposition of Costs

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contains multiple provisions aimed at discouraging abuse of process:

• Section 35: Empowers courts to award costs at their discretion.

• Section 35A: Provides for compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims or defences.

• Section 35B: Allows costs for causing delay in proceedings.

• Order VII Rule 11: Enables rejection of plaints that are frivolous or legally untenable at the threshold.

Despite this framework, courts have traditionally imposed nominal costs, often failing to reflect the true expense and hardship caused to the opposing party.

Judicial Shift: From Symbolic to Deterrent Costs

In recent years, courts—particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts—have begun expressing intolerance towards frivolous litigation.

Key Judicial Trends

1. Realistic and Exemplary Costs
   Courts have started imposing costs that reflect:

   • Wasted judicial time,

   • Litigation expenses borne by the opposite party, and

   • Abuse of public machinery (especially in government litigation).

2. State as a Frivolous Litigant
   High Courts have increasingly criticised the State for filing appeals mechanically, without examining:

   • Whether any public interest is involved, or

   • Whether the matter is already settled by precedent.

   Courts have described such conduct as a waste of public funds and directed accountability within government departments.

3. Early Dismissal of Baseless Claims
   There is a growing willingness to:

   • Reject plaints at the threshold,

   • Dismiss writ petitions involving purely civil disputes, and

   • Prevent re-agitation of settled issues under the guise of new proceedings.

Why Costs Matter as a Deterrent

The purpose of costs is not merely compensatory—it is corrective and deterrent. Meaningful costs ensure that:

• Litigants think twice before initiating speculative or malicious proceedings,

• Successful parties are not punished for asserting legitimate rights, and

• Judicial resources are preserved for genuine disputes.

Without effective cost imposition, frivolous litigants operate with impunity, knowing that the worst consequence is dismissal without financial repercussions.

Challenges in Consistent Enforcement

Despite positive trends, challenges remain:

• Lack of uniform standards for determining quantum of costs,

• Judicial hesitation in imposing heavy costs on individual litigants,

• Inconsistent application across jurisdictions, and

• Limited use of Section 35A CPC.

This inconsistency sometimes dilutes the deterrent effect courts seek to achieve.

The Way Forward

For the judicial push against frivolous litigation to be effective, the following are essential:

• Institutionalised guidelines on awarding realistic costs,

• Greater use of exemplary costs in repeat or abusive litigation,

• Stricter scrutiny of government appeals at the sanctioning stage, and

• Judicial encouragement of early-stage filtering mechanisms.

Conclusion

There is a clear and welcome judicial acknowledgment that frivolous litigation is no longer a mere inconvenience—it is a systemic threat. Recent decisions suggest that courts are indeed becoming more assertive in imposing costs and calling out abuse of process.

However, the true test lies in consistency and follow-through. If meaningful costs become the norm rather than the exception, India’s civil justice system may finally see a decline in frivolous litigation and a corresponding improvement in efficiency and credibility.