The state itself became the biggest litigant, either fighting a citizen or its own department or taking every case into appeal instead of performing the duty of addressing development and welfare of the people, who challenged its actions.

While it is ideal that every litigant should be responsible, state is also expected to be a 'Responsible litigant', which means, "that litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating, that false pleas and technical points will not be taken and shall be discouraged, ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the court, and that nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will be no attempt to mislead any court or Tribunal.

The state has a responsibility towards the citizen, who should not be treated as opposite party or rival.

It is not proper to take every case in appeal up to apex court mechanically, simply because there is a provision in Civil Procedure Code.

It has to introspect and answer whether it was behaving like a 'responsible litigant' with the citizen.

As pointed out by Hon'ble Justice TS Thakur, Judge of Supreme Court, there is no mechanism to scrutinize the cases which need to be contested and which not to be. It is rightly said that that large number of cases against state "cannot be a good sign of good governance"

Commission would like to quote Justice Thakur who said: "Every case filed irrespective of merits is burdening the judiciary, costing the exchequer and increasing the pendency of case. This is deficit in governance. Governance is not just army, police, road, building etc but governance also is adjudicating rights of a citizen which is legitimately due to him."