Key Terms & Concepts — UPSC Mains
National Litigation Policy
"Government's framework to reduce its own court caseload — first issued by UPA in 2010, revised in 2015 — addressing the fact that Centre + States are involved in ~50% of all Supreme Court cases."
The National Litigation Policy (NLP) is the Government of India's framework to rationalise and reduce litigation by Government departments and public-sector undertakings. The first NLP was issued by the UPA government in June 2010 under Law Minister Veerappa Moily, in recognition of the fact that the Government is the largest single litigant in India — involved in approximately 50% of all Supreme Court cases and a significant share of High Court matters. The 2010 NLP set objectives including: reducing average pendency; ensuring decisions are taken responsibly (not in mechanical pursuit of appeals); appointing senior officers as Nodal Officers; and using ADR/mediation. A revised NLP was prepared in 2015 by the NDA government, focusing on stricter pre-litigation screening, monetary thresholds for appeals, and accountability for frivolous appeals. Despite repeated revisions, implementation has remained patchy. Government litigation continues to crowd Supreme Court dockets — including service matters, tax appeals, land acquisition, and routine policy challenges.
GS2 (judiciary, governance). Prelims: 2010 issuance, 2015 revision, government's share of SC cases. Mains: SC pendency, Government as largest litigant, judicial efficiency.
- 1 First issued: June 2010 (UPA, Law Minister Veerappa Moily)
- 2 Revised: 2015 (NDA government)
- 3 Government is ~50% of all SC cases
- 4 Objectives: reduce pendency, responsible decision-making, ADR/mediation
- 5 Tools: monetary thresholds for appeals, Nodal Officers, pre-litigation screening
- 6 Implementation: patchy across departments
- 7 Department of Justice (DoJ): nodal central body
- 8 ADR: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Mediation Act 2023
The Hindu's May 29, 2026 op-ed on SC pendency identified the National Litigation Policy as a structural lever — arguing that a hard statutory floor on government appeals (above a defined monetary value or principle requirement) would do more to reduce backlog than adding judges.
