Interim orders should not undermine the Rule of Law

livemint.com:

India is governed by the Rule of Law, right? We have laws made by a democratically elected Parliament and an independent judiciary that decides on disputes in accordance with laws framed by Parliament. But do these two factors constitute the totality of the Rule of Law? The legal process in India is often protracted. High pendency of cases is both a symptom and a cause.

So what, one may argue. The wheels of law may grind exceedingly slowly, but at least they grind surely, don’t they? Not really. The duration of litigation has profound implications for the deliverance and quality of justice.

Well aware of delays in final adjudication but keen to ensure effective judicial remedies, courts rely on interim orders or ‘reliefs’ to preserve and safeguard the interest of litigants. This shift from Rule of Law to Rule of Interim Law has its own challenges. An interim order, when passed in favour of the losing party in the final judgement, can effectively nullify any relief granted in the final judgement.

We can examine two examples that illustrate the detrimental consequences of delays and interim orders. Sunita and Vishal entered a contract where Sunita promised to give Vishal 20% of her company’s shares under certain conditions. Vishal filed a civil suit to enforce the contract, and in the interim, the court prevented Sunita from changing her company’s capital structure.

After 30 years, the court ruled in favour of Sunita, but due to economic changes, the value of the company and its shares had eroded. Sunita suffered a huge financial loss despite winning the suit. In the next instance, a landlady wanted to evict a tenant to live in her own apartment.