Substantive Right Accrued To A Litigant Should Not Be Defeated Citing Procedural Defects Capable Of Being Cured: SC
What is the Principle?
This principle means:
When a person has a substantive right — a real, legal right that has arisen — the courts should ensure that this right is not denied or defeated just because of procedural defects (technical or formal errors in how a case was filed or pursued), especially if those defects can be fixed or cured.
In other words, procedural rules are there to aid justice, not to become a barrier that unfairly prevents a person from getting their rightful due.
Why this Principle?
The purpose of law and courts is to deliver justice on merits, i.e., to decide cases based on the real rights and facts, not just on formal technicalities.
Procedural defects are sometimes unavoidable and can be minor or accidental.
If such defects can be remedied (like delay can be condoned, errors in pleadings can be corrected), courts should prefer curing the defects rather than dismissing the entire claim.
This approach protects access to justice and prevents injustice caused by hyper-technical interpretations.
Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (AIR 1995 SC 1073)
Facts: Popular Construction had filed claims for extra payment and other reliefs but made some procedural lapses.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that procedural rules cannot be used to defeat substantive rights.
The Court emphasized that substantive justice should prevail over procedural technicalities.
If a defect is curable, courts should cure it to avoid injustice to the litigant.
Key takeaway: Courts must not reject claims on technicalities when the claim involves a substantial right.
2. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353)
Issue: The case dealt with compensation under Land Acquisition laws.
Judgment: The Supreme Court stated that the law is not an instrument of injustice and that courts should ensure that procedural defects do not defeat a person’s substantive right.
Even if the claimant failed to comply with some procedural requirement, it should not result in denial of compensation if the right to compensation has accrued.
Key takeaway: Substantive rights (like the right to compensation) cannot be denied by strict application of procedural defects that can be cured or waived.
3. K.L. Verma v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 224)
Facts: The case involved delays in filing appeals or applications.
Judgment: The Court ruled that where procedural delays or errors are curable or excusable, they should be condoned so that the litigant can present their case on merits.
The Court stressed that technicalities should not defeat justice.
Key takeaway: Courts should interpret procedural requirements liberally to prevent loss of substantive rights.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416)
Context: The case involved termination of service and procedural defects in filing appeals.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that procedural rules must be interpreted liberally to protect substantive rights.
It stated that strict procedural rules should not become obstacles to justice.
Key takeaway: Justice must be served on merit rather than procedural defaults.
How Do Courts Apply This Principle?
Extension of time: When a party misses a deadline due to genuine reasons, courts often grant extension so the substantive right is preserved.
Allowing amendments: Courts permit correcting pleadings or applications if defects are minor and do not cause prejudice.
Relaxation of rules: Sometimes courts relax procedural rules (like limitation periods) in the interest of justice.
Refusing to dismiss on technical grounds: Courts prefer to decide cases on the substance of the matter rather than on technicalities.
Summary in Own Words:
The law recognizes two types of rights — substantive rights and procedural rules.
Substantive rights are the real rights people have, like the right to compensation, property, or justice.
Procedural rules are like the steps or methods one must follow to enforce those rights.
If someone’s substantive right has arisen, it should not be denied just because they made a mistake in procedure — especially if that mistake can be fixed.
Courts have repeatedly held this principle to make sure justice is done, and nobody loses their rights because of technical slip-ups.
The idea is to give effect to justice and fairness, not to punish litigants for curable errors.
RELATED Blog
0 comments