The Karnataka High Court called it an irony: A law meant to curb red tapism has failed

The Karnataka High Court has commented on four appeals filed by the state government against the verdicts of a single judge in connection with the service of some employees of the Karnataka State Law University. | Photo credit: The Hindu

Noting a delay of 466 days to 1,099 days in filing appeals against judgments, the Karnataka High Court said the Karnataka Government had enacted the Karnataka Government Disputes Act, 2023, “to arrest red tapism, but red tapism appears to have stalled the operation of this Act”.

A division bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni made these observations on four appeals filed by the state government against the verdicts of a single judge in connection with the service of certain employees of the Karnataka State Law University.

What the 2023 Act Says

Apart from various apex court judgments on delay in filing appeals by state authorities, the state-enacted Act of 2023 clearly prescribes that officers must comply with the limitation period to prefer an appeal, review or revision against a court verdict, the Bench said, pointing out that none of the current appeals demonstrate compliance with the statutory discipline of litigation contemplated in the Disputes Act.

“Time limits prescribed for moving files, securing opinions, and making decisions have apparently been thrown out of whack. The state that enacted the law to bring order and accountability to government litigation has not itself demonstrated fidelity to its mandate. The irony is unmistakable: The state enacted a law to arrest red tapism, but it seems the law arrested red tapism. The bench was arrested.

The Bench noted that the proffered explanations for the delay – the movement of files from desk to desk, correspondence passing from clerk to clerk, required legal opinions and collection of documents – merely recorded administrative activity without providing sufficient cause to excuse the delay in filing the appeal.

‘Don’t look for an exception’

“The State is expected to be a model litigant, not a privileged procrastinator. Its duty is to uphold the rule of law, not to seek exceptions to its operation,” the Bench said, noting that “a law enacted by the State cannot remain a mere ornament on the statute book, commanding obedience to all but its own author.”

Stating that the applications filed by the state government explaining the reason for the colossal delay “disclose no exceptional circumstance, no compelling impediment and no plausible explanation that could constitute a sufficient cause for the extraordinary delays,” the Bench said, noting that “what is presented as an explanation is essentially a set of administrative excuses; what would be claimed as judicial leniency, red tape granted through judicial means.”

Dismissing one of the applications by “verbatim reproduction” of another, the Bench said that “a copy-and-paste explanation cannot become a passport to consent to delay”.

Published – 28 Oct 2026 21:33 IST