Raising the bar

Allegations of mala fide conduct and victimisation, often easily made, require high standards of proof

- RAAVI BIRBAL

Often in litigations, the plea of mala fide and victimisation is taken without any cogent proof. Justice Krishna Iyer, in 'Gulam Mustafa & Ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors' (1975), aptly said, "It (mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant."

Allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than substantiated, and the seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high degree of credibility, as held in 'Ajit Kumar Nag vs GM (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation' (2005). The Supreme Court stated that there is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power exercised by it is bona fide and in good faith. In 'EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr' (1973), the Supreme Court noted that the burden of establishing mala fides lies heavily on the person who alleges it. Allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and their seriousness demands proof of a high order of credibility.

In 'Gulam Mustafa' (supra), the court mentioned that striking down any act for mala fide exercise of power is a judicial reserve power exercised lethally, but rarely. Courts have held in various dicta that suspicion cannot replace proof, and the proof required is of a high degree.