KRISHNA lYER, J.-The judgment just del,ivered has my full concurrence but I feel impelled to make a few observations not on the merits but on govermental disposition to litigation, the present case being symptomatic of a serious deficiency. In this country th~ State is the largest litigant to-Jay and the huge expenditure involved makes a c· big draft on the public exchequer. ln the contt of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its litiga!lcn policy, the 1bscnce of which, in the present case, he led the Railway callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its own employee, a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which has been pursued right up to the summit court here and has been negatived in the judgment just pronounced? lmtances D· of this type are legion as is evidenced by the fact that then Law Com. mission of India in a recent report (1 ) on amendments to the Civil Procedure Code has su£gested the deletion of s. 80, finding that wholesome provision hardly ever utilised by Government, and has gone further to provide a special procedure for government litigation to highlight the need for an activist policy of just settlement of claims wher~~ the State is a party. It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced, and while formulating the humanist projct of legal aid to the poor. contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading limitation and the like. That the tendency is chronic flows from certain observations I had made in the Kcrala High Court decision(2) which I may usefully excerpt here - F' "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 ca:::e against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for, the Stte's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical G 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 Iiti· gant 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 H (I) Law Commision of India, 54th Report-Civil Procedure Code. (2) para P.P. 5. Abu backer v. The Union of India : A.I.R. 1972 Ker. 103 : 107: . I
