Office Memorandum Dated 04.04.2025: Stride From Paper Policy To Enforceable SOPs

On 04.04.2025, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs issued a 'Directive for the Efficient and Effective Management of Litigation' ('Directive'). It may be seen as a substitute to the National Litigation Policy ('NLP') 2024, which was long contemplated but yet to be implemented, NLP 2010 being the last version of it. The Directive seeks to bring practicality to the existing government litigation management – a step from aspiration to action.

The much awaited NLP 2024 is pending Cabinet approval since mid-2024. While the reason for such halt in updating of NLP is open to layman speculation, it could be due to the lack of enforceable provisions in NLP 2024, leaving its implementation dependent entirely on departmental discretion. Hence, the Directive, issued as an Office Memorandum, to may be bypass the need for a Cabinet approval.

Shift in Governance Philosophy: From Reactive to Proactive

The initial 5 Chapters of the Directive serve as a preface providing what is to be expected by offering an Introduction [Chapter 1], Background [Chapter 2], Vision, [Chapter 3] Objective and Justification thereof. The Directive recognizes that litigation springs from governance as complexity of government functions leads to uncertainties, clogging the already overburdened Judiciary. The Directive seeks to build an integrated and coordinated litigation management system enforcing SOPs across Ministries/Department of Central Government and subordinate offices and autonomous bodies before Courts and Tribunals and other quasi- judicial fora as a part of the larger 'Vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047'.

The Directive is aimed at streamlining litigation processes, reducing repetitive litigation, rectify inconsistent or erroneous policies/orders, avoiding unnecessary appeals and establish a sound Knowledge Management System (KMS) [Chapter 4] The need for the Directive arises in High volume of government litigation, Contempt proceedings due to delays or non-compliance, lack of legal expertise in Ministries, absence of clear SOPs, repetitive litigation on same issues (service, pension, land, etc.), varied success rates hinting at inconsistent strategy, misinterpretation or poor implementation of rules, poor documentation and procedural lapses, Contractual disputes due to unfair terms or non-compliance, re-litigation of settled matters, lack of inter-ministerial coordination and rise of new legal areas (like data, AI, ESG, insolvency), etc. [Chapter 5]

Unlike its predecessor, the NLP 2010 or the stillborn NLP 2024, which focused primarily on limiting unnecessary litigation after it arose, the 2025 Directive integrates legal risk management into governance itself. 'Risk Assessment' has been embedded at all stages - drafting new laws, policies, or contracts—a critical departure from the earlier reactive approach.

Clauses of Chapter 6: The Operational Framework

This Chapter details the Directive's framework for operation. In a snapshot, this Chapter of the Directive mandates:

• Establishment of dedicated Legal Cells in every Ministry, staffed with qualified legal professionals.

• Ministries to conduct litigation risk analysis before drafting new laws, rules, or policies.
• Ministries to periodically review subordinate legislation and procedures to remove ambiguities and operational inconsistencies that may give rise to litigation.
• All important circulars and policy documents to be compiled into a publicly available Master Circular to ensure uniformity and clarity.
• Strengthening of internal grievance redressal mechanisms as much litigation originates from employee grievances
• Enhancement of quality of legal handling and capacity-building programs to be rolled out via iGOT Karmayogi platform.
• Annual workshops on high-volume service-related issues to reduce inconsistencies in legal responses and unnecessary litigation.
• The Department of Personnel and Training ('DoPT') to create a central pool of retired government officers who can serve as Inquiry or Presenting Officers in disciplinary matters with features like dashboard to track their availability, experience, and assignment histories.
• DoPT is to periodically review the application fees for Central Administrative Tribunal cases to ensure they remain reasonable.
• Contractual disputes, which are a major source of litigation to be addressed through prompt responses to Notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and development of litigation-resistant contract templates.
• Emphasises on Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation is mandatory in appropriate cases under the Mediation Act, 2023, and institutional arbitration should be preferred over ad hoc. Arbitral awards are to be treated as not having precedential value. A dedicated Government Arbitration Portal to be launched to track all government arbitrations via unique case IDs.
• Classification of cases as regular, sensitive, or highly sensitive requiring stages of review.
• Cases involving similar legal questions to be tagged together or transferred. In litigation involving more than one Ministry, the lead Ministry must be identified to coordinate for government position.
• Avoidance of delays limiting Ministries to two adjournments per case and justification in writing and escalation before the Nodal Officer for more.
• All litigation data to be managed through the Legal Information Management and Briefing System which is to be integrated with e-Courts.
• Ministries to perform internal evaluation of judgments and their implications before seeking guidance from DoPT.
• Appeals are to be filed only if there are realistic chances of success, based on formal risk–reward analysis. ₹10 crore has been set as the pecuniary threshold for filing appeals in non-tax commercial matters post clearance from a high-level Committee on Appeals. Special Leave Petitions are discouraged unless the matter involves grave injustice, questions of public importance, conflicting High Court judgments, or violations of natural justice. Appeals against ex parte interim orders are to be avoided unless policy is clearly at stake.
• Panel Counsels to be assigned based on subject-matter expertise. New empanelment guidelines will govern their selection and elevation. Ministries are required to submit annual feedback on counsel performance, which will be used to determine extensions, promotions, or removals from panels.
• Annual national conference on pressing legal issues to be conducted jointly by the Ministries of Law and Justice.
• Creation of amnesty schemes for resolving minor, compoundable disputes—especially under repealed laws.

In essence, Chapter 6 of the Directive is a major shift from litigation management as an administrative function to a litigation strategy.

Residuary Chapters of the Directive

Chapter 7 outlines the monitoring mechanism of the Directive - Ministries and Departments are responsible for executing and suggesting changes based on experience. The Directive is to be reviewed by the Committee of Secretaries, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, with the Department of Legal Affairs (DoLA) assisting and publishing an annual implementation report.

Chapter 8 provides applicability of the Directive – It is binding on all Central Government Ministries/Departments, their attached and subordinate offices, and autonomous bodies and also extends to Central Public Sector Enterprises in arbitration matters.

Chapter 9 of the Directive gives the option to State Governments to consider adopting the Directive to streamline their own litigation management processes, however, the same is not obligatory.

The Government of India is heralded to be the largest litigant in the country, significantly contributing to the overburdening of the Courts. It is hoped that the Directive will reduce frivolous litigations and Appeals by the government. The monitoring mechanism may improve accountability — but the biggest hurdle is its adoption and implementation. While the Directive is potent, it is not without structural flaws.

The Directive may aspire to transform Government's image to a 'responsible litigant', but it hinges heavily on bureaucratic will and proper staffing of legal cells. The biggest hurdle is the non-statutory nature of the Directive, i.e., it is issued as an Office Memorandum lacking statutory force. Any possible non-compliance may go unpunished as no consequences are prescribed for violation of the Directive. Further, pan India coverage is curtailed since States are merely encouraged to adopt the Directive without any sanction or incentive at the least. Arguably, the Directive is a structured effort but considering the limitations – does it make the Directive yet another policy with excellent intentions and uneven execution?