Dr. Sasmit Patra at ILI: A Case for a National Litigation Management Law

What happened

Lecture titled "Reforming State as a Litigant: The Case for a National Litigation Management Law." Dr. Sasmit Patra, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, delivered the lecture. The event foregrounded a concrete legislative and administrative approach to government litigation reform.

Why this matters

Government litigation consumes court time, public resources, and can prolong legal uncertainty. The lecture connected past policy steps to a proposal for a statutory framework that would change incentives and introduce institutional checks so the State litigates with greater discipline and purpose.

Policy background referenced

Dr. Patra traced the evolution of official effort on this topic, citing:

• Policy (2010) and its revival in 2017.
• The government's formal position in 2022.
• Fresh directions issued by the Department of Legal Affairs on 4 April 2025.

He also pointed to judicial authorities that recognise the model-litigant principle, including Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. M/s Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd., which establish that the State should act fairly and avoid unnecessary or mechanical appeals.

The proposal: six pillars

Dr. Patra set out six pillars intended for inclusion in a National Litigation Management Law:

• A statutory model-litigant obligation requiring the State to follow prescribed standards when starting or defending litigation.
• Nodal litigation officers in government departments tasked with litigation strategy and coordination.
• A smart filing and appeal policy to screen cases before suit or appeal is authorised.
• Mandatory alternative dispute resolution for identified categories of cases to reduce court load.
• Technology-enabled litigation monitoring to track pendency, costs, and outcomes.
• Parliamentary audit and oversight to create external accountability for litigation choices.

Merit Certificate and sunset approach

A standout operational idea was a "Merit Certificate" for appeals. That certificate would assess whether an appeal raises a genuine question of law, involves public interest, relates to conflicting precedent, has significant financial implications, or is otherwise time-barred. The certificate would be a gatekeeping tool to prevent purposeless appeals. Dr. Patra also discussed borrowing the logic of a "sunset clause" to bring an end to litigation that no longer serves a substantive legal or public-policy purpose.

Institutional and academic follow-up

Practical takeaways

Law departments and policymakers can test individual elements—such as nodal litigation officers or merit-certification for appeals—within existing administrative frameworks before moving to statute. Technology and ADR provisions offer more immediate operational gains, while parliamentary audit would require legislative design and political buy-in.

Bottom line

The lecture framed government litigation reform as a mix of law, institutional design, and process change. The proposed National Litigation Management Law bundles those elements into a single legislative aim: reduce unnecessary litigation, protect public resources, and manage judicial pendency through clearer obligations, gatekeeping, and oversight.