Vexatious litigation refers to legal proceedings initiated with malicious intent and lacking reasonable justification, typically aimed at harassing or undermining an opponent. This type of litigation imposes an unnecessary burden on the legal system, squanders judicial resources, and causes considerable distress to those involved. Courts around the world have acknowledged the necessity of addressing vexatious litigations to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

Understanding Vexatious Litigation:

Vexatious litigation is defined by the repeated initiation of baseless legal actions motivated more by a desire to inconvenience or harm rather than to pursue legitimate legal remedies.

Key characteristics of vexatious litigation include:

• Lack of Merit: Such cases are frequently devoid of any legal basis.
• Malicious Intent: The primary goal of the litigant is to harass or embarrass the defendant.
• Repetitive Nature: The litigant often files numerous cases on the same or similar issues, persistently ignoring unfavourable judgments.
• Abuse of Process: The legal process is misused as a means to achieve non-legal objectives, such as personal vendettas.

Legal Framework to Address Vexatious Litigation:

In response to vexatious litigation, many jurisdictions have implemented specific laws or provisions within their legal frameworks. These laws empower courts to identify and limit vexatious litigants from initiating any further legal actions without prior approval.

In India, for instance, the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) includes provisions against vexatious litigation under Section 35A, which permits courts to impose compensatory costs if a claim or defence is deemed false or vexatious. Furthermore, the High Courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to prevent the misuse of the legal process.

Court Judgments:

• Grepe v. Loam (1887) marked a significant moment in the United Kingdom's legal landscape by establishing guidelines for addressing vexatious litigants. In this case, the plaintiff incessantly initiated frivolous lawsuits against the defendants, prompting the Court of Appeal to assert that courts possess the inherent authority to prohibit such litigants from filing additional legal actions without prior permission. This ruling is among the first to clearly acknowledge the necessity of restricting vexatious litigants in the legal system.



• In Smith v. South Australia (No 2) (2015), the Supreme Court of South Australia addressed a case where the plaintiff had commenced numerous lawsuits against various government officials, all of which were considered frivolous. The court designated the plaintiff as a vexatious litigant, leading to limitations on his capacity to initiate further legal actions. This ruling underscored the considerable strain that vexatious litigation imposes on public resources and reaffirmed the necessity for courts to respond decisively to such cases.



• In the case of Attorney-General v. Barker (2000) in the United Kingdom, the High Court of Justice ruled Mr. Barker a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Actions Act of 1896. The court determined that Mr. Barker had repeatedly engaged in filing baseless and redundant legal claims against various defendants. The ruling underscored the necessity of safeguarding individuals and the legal system from the exploitation of court procedures by persistent litigants.



• In the case of Springwell Navigation Corporation (2007) in the United Kingdom's High Court of Justice, the court determined that the numerous legal actions initiated by Springwell Navigation Corporation against various parties were unfounded. As a result, the court designated the company as a vexatious litigant, imposing restrictions on its ability to initiate further lawsuits without obtaining prior permission. This ruling underscored the court's commitment to limiting abusive litigation practices that place a strain on the legal system.



• In the case of R (on the application of Ewing) v. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal addressed the plaintiff's persistent attempts to contest multiple governmental decisions via judicial review, despite the ongoing determinations that his claims lacked merit. The court consequently deemed the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, highlighting the necessity of safeguarding the judicial review process from misuse.



• In the case of Foy v. Foy (1985), the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling that labelled a litigant as vexatious due to his incessant filing of unfounded lawsuits against his ex-spouse. The court highlighted the necessity for judicial action to curb harassment via the legal system and to safeguard the effective operation of the courts.



• US Federal Courts frequently apply Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to penalize litigants for filing frivolous lawsuits. This rule empowers courts to impose fines and other disciplinary measures on parties or attorneys who initiate lawsuits lacking legal merit. It acts as a deterrent against abusive litigation practices and has been affirmed through multiple federal court rulings.



• The Supreme Court held that it is not only impermissible to file a second FIR in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, for the same offence or various other offences arising out of the same transaction but it would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.



• The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, took up a case concerning a vexatious complaint. The Bench highlighted their apprehension regarding such practices and stressed the importance of examining these complaints from the very beginning. They stated, "It is incumbent on the Trial Judge, under the Constitution and the CrPC, to quash frivolous litigation at the initial stage by exercising fully and effectively the powers vested in him."



• In Re: Manikyam, 1938, one of the earliest Indian cases addressing vexatious litigation, the Madras High Court recognized the need to restrain litigants from engaging in trivial lawsuits. The court underscored the importance of judicial restraint and the necessity for mechanisms to discourage such practices.



• In P.H. Kurian v. M. Catherine, 2007, the Kerala High Court encountered a situation where the petitioner had made several filings on the same issue despite previous adverse rulings. The court deemed the petitioner a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from submitting any further suits or appeals without prior court approval.



• In Vinayak Pandurang Narayan v. Gururaj Pandurang, 1958, the Bombay High Court addressed a litigant who repeatedly sued his brother over a property dispute, despite clear rulings favouring the brother. The court acknowledged the repeated and unfounded nature of the suits and imposed significant costs on the litigant to discourage future vexatious actions.



• In Re: Harish Uppal, 1994, the Supreme Court of India examined vexatious litigation in the context of public interest litigation (PIL), emphasizing that while PILs can serve as instruments for social justice, they can also be misused by individuals with hidden agendas. The court established guidelines to filter out vexatious PILs and stressed the importance of careful scrutiny before admitting such cases.



• In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994, the Supreme Court dealt with a litigant who secured a decree by concealing substantial facts from the court. The court concluded that a fraudulently obtained decree is void and can be contested at any time, reinforcing that the judicial process must not be exploited by vexatious litigants and that courts are obligated to protect the justice system.

International Perspective:

Vexatious litigation is a global concern, affecting courts worldwide. In the United Kingdom, the Vexatious Actions Act of 1896 was instituted to prevent individuals who habitually and persistently file meritless lawsuits from continuing this behaviour. Under this statute, the Attorney General can request the High Court to designate someone a vexatious litigant, which subsequently bars them from commencing legal proceedings without prior court leave.

In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to impose sanctions on parties that pursue frivolous lawsuits. In addition, many states have their own regulations addressing vexatious litigation, permitting courts to establish pre-filing restrictions for habitual litigants.

Impact on the Legal System:

• Judicial Backlog: Frivolous and repetitive lawsuits exacerbate case backlogs, delaying the resolution of legitimate disputes.
• Resource Drain: Courts, already under pressure, must allocate valuable time and resources to address meritless cases.
• Financial Costs: Defendants in vexatious lawsuits often incur significant legal expenses, even if the cases are ultimately dismissed.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Continuous misuse of the legal system can undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the legal process.

Judicial Remedies and Sanctions:

• Imposing Costs: Courts may impose exemplary or compensatory costs on vexatious litigants to deter them from pursuing frivolous lawsuits.
• Restraining Orders: Courts have the authority to issue restraining orders against vexatious litigants, thereby prohibiting them from initiating additional lawsuits without obtaining prior consent.
• Summary Dismissal: Courts can quickly dismiss cases that are identified as vexatious or as an abuse of the legal process.
• Criminal Contempt: In severe instances, vexatious litigants may face contempt of court charges due to their ongoing and disruptive actions.

Conclusion:
Vexatious litigation poses a significant threat to the legal system, as it erodes the foundations of justice and fairness. Courts need to be proactive in recognizing and addressing these cases to safeguard against the misuse of judicial resources. The established legal framework, alongside judicial discretion and the enforcement of suitable penalties, is essential in discouraging vexatious litigants.

This approach helps maintain the integrity of the legal system and protects the rights of legitimate claimants. By consistently implementing these strategies, courts can ensure that the legal system serves as a venue for resolving authentic disputes, unencumbered by the disturbances associated with vexatious litigation.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565