INTRODUCTION

Intervention is a process through which a non party person also known as an intervener can be allowed to seek for joining an ongoing case with discretion of the court. Intervention is a tool for such third party persons who can be affected by the judgement in a particular case, so they can seek intervention and have the right to be heard.

An intervention application can be filed by any person or entity who has a direct interest in a case or proceeding and wishes to participate in it in order to protect their rights or interests. This can include individuals, organizations, government agencies, or other parties who believe that they will be affected by the outcome of the case and want to have a say in the proceedings.

WHAT IS CIVIL INTERVENTION?

A third party that is not directly involved in a lawsuit may request authorization from the court to intervene on their behalf in order to defend their own rights or interests. This legal procedure is known as civil intervention. The official request made to the court by the third party requesting authorization to become involved in the case is known as a civil intervention application. After reviewing the application, the court will determine whether to grant the third party’s request to join the lawsuit. Individuals, groups, or governmental agencies who feel that the case’s decision may have an impact on them may request this intervention.

Permissive intervention and intervention of right are the two primary categories of civil intervention. When a third party has a legal stake in the case’s outcome and their involvement is required to safeguard that stake, this is known as intervention of right. On the other hand, if the third party’s engagement won’t unnecessarily delay or prejudice the case, the court may authorise permissive intervention.

Making sure that all pertinent parties are heard during the legal process can be accomplished through the use of civil intervention. For instance, an adjacent landowner may want to get involved in a case involving a dispute over property rights in order to defend their own property interests. Similarly, a consumer advocacy group may intervene in a case involving a company accused of deceptive business practices in order to ensure that the interests of consumers are represented.

Overall, civil intervention can help to ensure that all relevant perspectives are considered in a legal proceeding, leading to a more fair and just outcome for all parties involved.

WHO CAN FILE INTERVENTION APPLICATION UNDER CIVIL LAW?

Generally speaking, parties with a direct and substantial stake in the lawsuit’s subject matter are permitted to intervene civilly. This can include people whose rights are in jeopardy or who stand to gain something legally from the case’s resolution. Parties that frequently ask for intervention include:

1. Governmental organisations or regulatory authorities with a stake in the case’s outcome, such as those concerning public policy or environmental legislation.
2. Industry associations or trade associations that speak for a certain industry or set of companies’ interests.
3. Those who stand to gain personally from the case’s outcome, such as the parties’ families or those who might be impacted by the court’s ruling.
4. Nonprofits or advocacy groups whose goals are associated with the case’s subject matter.

 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CIVIL INTERVENTION

The party wishing to intervene in a civil litigation must be able to show that they have a legitimate legal interest in the case and that the case requires their participation in order to defend that interest. Typical justifications for involvement consist of:

1. The party requesting intervention has a claim under the law, such as a property interest or contractual right that could be impacted by the case’s verdict.

In the case of  State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court allowed intervention by a state government based on its claimed property rights over certain lands, asserting that its interests would be directly affected by the outcome of the case.

2. The party requesting intervention has a stake in the outcome of the case that is financially significant, such as a business.

In the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court recognised the right of a business entity to intervene in a dispute concerning a commercial contract, emphasizing the significant financial impact on the intervenor’s business operations.

3. The party requesting intervention may not be sufficiently represented by the current parties and possesses special knowledge or experience that is pertinent to the issue.

In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co., the Kerala High Court allowed intervention by an expert in electrical engineering because of the technical expertise possessed by the intervenor, which was crucial to the resolution of technical aspects of the case.

4. The party requesting intervention, such as a family member of one of the parties, has a personal or emotional stake in the issue that is not sufficiently reflected by the current parties.

In Sheela Barse v. Union of India, the Supreme Court permitted intervention by social activists in a case concerning the rights of women prisoners, acknowledging their personal stake and the unique perspective they brought to the litigation that was not adequately represented by the existing parties.

POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF CIVIL INTERVENTION

A party may be permitted to take part in the proceedings, submit evidence, and present arguments in support of their position if they are granted intervention in a civil litigation. When rendering its decision, the court may additionally take the intervenor’s interests into account.

GROUNDS UNDER WHICH CIVIL INTERVENTION CAN BE ALLOWED

1. When the need for intervention arises to defend the rights of a non-party third party whose rights could be impacted by the case’s verdict.

Supporting the above ground is the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court allowed intervention by a non-party trade association representing the interests of various manufacturers, as the outcome of the case would impact their members’ rights and interests.

2. When the case must be determined on its merits or to avert injustice, intervention is required.

In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court permitted intervention by social organisations in a case concerning the rights of Hindu women in relation to bigamy and maintenance, emphasizing the need to ensure justice and protect the rights of affected parties.

3. When preventing abuse of the legal system or safeguarding the public interest necessitates involvement.

In the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court allowed intervention by public interest organisations in cases involving corruption allegations against high-ranking officials, highlighting the importance of safeguarding public interest and preventing abuse of power.

4. When the intervention is required to elucidate legal matters or to offer further proof or arguments that could aid the court in making a fair ruling.

In R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court permitted intervention by legal experts in a case involving interpretation of constitutional provisions related to reservation policies, recognising the need for additional legal perspectives to aid the court in making a fair and informed decision.

GROUNDS UNDER WHICH CIVIL INTERVENTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED

1. Where the goal of the intervention is to impede or postpone the procedures, or when it is requested for any other improper reason.

In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, the Supreme Court refused intervention where the application appeared to be a tactic to delay the proceedings rather than genuinely adding value to the case.

2. When someone who would not further the interests of justice or who does not have a significant interest in the case requests intervention.

In the case of Mahaveer Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court denied intervention to an individual who failed to demonstrate a direct interest in the case and whose involvement was deemed unlikely to contribute to the interests of justice.

3. When the request for intervention is made after the matter has already been resolved or when doing so would unreasonably jeopardise the parties’ interests.

In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, the Kerala High Court rejected intervention requested after the main matter had been decided, stating that allowing intervention at such a late stage would prejudice the rights of the parties already involved in the litigation.

4. When someone who lacks the required legal standing to intervene in the matter or who is not being represented by counsel requests intervention.

Supporting the above ground is the of Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, wherein the Madras High Court refused intervention by a person who lacked the necessary legal standing and was not represented by counsel, emphasizing the importance of proper legal representation and standing in intervention applications.

CASE LAWS

1. State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Babulal Dhanuka

The Supreme Court determined that a third party may file a civil intervention application in a pending civil suit if they have a direct interest in the suit’s subject matter and their rights may be impacted by the case’s outcome.

2. Shantilal M. Shah v. Union of India

The Bombay High Court determined that a party who was not a party to the original suit but had a direct interest in the suit’s subject matter and whose rights might be impacted by the case’s outcome could file a civil intervention application. The court further decided that the intervention application need to be submitted as soon as possible to avoid unnecessarily delaying the proceedings.

3. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh

The Supreme Court ruled that parties with a direct stake in the outcome of the case may bring a civil intervention motion. The Court further concluded that if the intervention will help the Court reach a just conclusion, it should be permitted.

4. Common Cause v. Union of India

The Supreme Court ruled that applications for civil intervention should be granted if they bring up significant legal or constitutional concerns that are pertinent to the matter at hand. The Court further decided that the intervention could not excessively prolong the proceedings or harm the original case’s parties.

5. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India

The Supreme Court ruled that applications for civil intervention should be granted if they serve the public interest and raise concerns that the parties to the original case did not fully address. Additionally, the Court decided that the intervention should not stray from the original case’s parameters and should only address the problems brought up in the application.

Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has often maintained that applications for civil intervention should be granted if they further justice and bring up significant legal or constitutional problems that are pertinent to the matter at hand. The Court has also stressed that interventions shouldn’t unnecessarily prolong the case’s processes or harm the parties involved.

6. M/s. Surya Enterprises v. M/s. Surya Developers

The Bombay High Court held that a third party may file a civil intervention application in a pending civil suit if they have a direct interest in the suit’s subject matter and their rights may be impacted by the suit’s decision.

7. M/s. Pooja Builders v. M/s. Anand Constructions

The Bombay High Court ruled in this case that a civil intervention application may be made at any point throughout the litigation as long as the petitioner can show a significant interest in the topic being sued.

8. M/s. XYZ Corporation v. M/s. ABC Ltd.

In this case the Bombay High Court ruled that a civil intervention application must be accompanied by an affidavit outlining the applicant’s interest in the subject matter of the suit as well as the grounds for the intervention.

9. M/s. Ramesh Builders v. M/s. Shyam Developers

The Bombay High Court held in this case that the court is empowered to grant or deny a civil intervention application in accordance with the case’s facts and circumstances as well as the interests of justice.

10. M/s. Gupta Enterprises v. M/s. Singh Builders

The Bombay High Court held that a civil intervention motion must be submitted on time and should not unnecessarily impede the progress of the main lawsuit.

CONCLUSION

Under civil law, intervention is a useful tool that enables parties to join a judicial procedure to defend their interests or give the court pertinent information. The process can be complicated and necessitates thorough examination of the legal requirements and repercussions, whether the intervention is required or permissive. Parties can successfully navigate the legal system and guarantee that their rights are adequately represented by being aware of the regulations and procedures governing intervention. All things considered, intervention is essential to advancing justice and fairness in civil litigation.

REFERENCES

1. “Code of Civil Procedure” by Mulla.
2. “Law of Civil Procedure in India” by C.K. Takwani.
3. “Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure” by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal.
4. “The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with Exhaustive Case Law” by Justice G.P. Singh.
5. https://dumanimail.in/intervention-petition/#:~:text=Under%20Order%201%20Rule%208A,a%20party%20to%20the%20case
6. https://lawtimesjournal.in/when-can-a-person-intervene-in-a-suit-scope-of-intervention-in-india/

 BY,

GAURI DANGI