“Writ Court while deciding a Writ Petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice.

In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of High Court after a lapse of 5 years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by Writ Court.

The grievance agitated by the Writ Petition did not deserve to be addressed on merits. Doctrine of Delay and Laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone.”

– Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra, State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri, [Civil Appeal Nos. 8390-8391 of 2015].

_____

Chief Justice Hidayatullah’s view in Tilokchand and Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 emerged as most pragmatic. “Was a valid and plausible explanation offered?” Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84 reiterated, no relief would be given to those who, without a reasonable explanation, approach this Court under Article 32 after an inordinate delay. G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 329 adds an important dimension. It was explicitly recognized, extenuating circumstances, such as economic status, can also be a factor considered to validly explain a delay.

To apply Doctrine of Delay and Laches strictly based on quantum of delay would fundamentally alter its core character, transforming it from a flexible, discretionary standard into a rigid rule. Historical injustices are often deeply entrenched in societal structures and arrangements, rendering them self-perpetuating across generations. A rigid or mechanical application of Doctrine of Delay and Laches could inadvertently serve to perpetuate historical wrongs, effectively denying access to justice and shielding systemic inequities behind procedural barriers.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Mizo Chief v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2014] decided on 13.03.2026.