The Supreme Court on Friday asked why the Union government is unable to adhere to timelines for filing petitions, Live Law reported.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said there was a need for authorities under the Union government, for example the National Highways Authority of India, to introspect on the reasons for excessive delays in filing petitions.

The remarks came a day after Scroll reported about how government delays in filing replies were leading to a high number of pending cases in constitutional courts.

The bench made the remarks while hearing a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India against an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, which had refused to entertain its appeal in a dispute under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to limitation.

The code provides a legal framework to resolve insolvency cases and release non-performing assets quickly. The statute of limitations for applications under the code is three years from the date on which the right to sue begins to accrue, or the date of default.

The matter pertained to proceedings under the code where the National Highways Authority of India was an operational creditor and certain concessionaires had defaulted in payments.

The highways authority was aggrieved by a new resolution plan, or a proposal to resolve a corporate debtor’s insolvency under the code, passed in its absence and without its consent to the terms brought in by a new concessionaire, according to Live Law.

On Friday, the court took serious note of the delay by the National Highways Authority of India in taking legal action in the matter.

“I think everyone is adhering to the time schedule in almost 95% of cases, why should the Government of India not be able to adhere to it?” Khanna asked. “There is something wrong somewhere, a delay of 295 days!”

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the highways authority, said he would speak to its chairperson about the delay. “Let him go into it, why there was lethargy or otherwise,” Mehta said, according to Live Law.

Mehta also told the court that the resolution professional had advised the highways authority to file an application under Form F, which is a proof of claim by any other stakeholder.

A resolution professional is a person appointed to manage a corporate debtor’s affairs during the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

However, the court refused to dwell on the merits of the matter. “Look you should have immediately acted upon and there is some introspective which needs to be done,” Khanna said, according to Live Law.

The court then dismissed the petition after observing that the matter was barred by limitation.

There are no legally prescribed time limits for the filing of counter affidavits by the government. However, governments at the Centre as well as states routinely breach court-set deadlines for filing replies. This results in an inordinate delay in the court even beginning to proceed with the case.

Several politically sensitive and significant cases, including a challenge to the Places of Worship Act, are pending in the Supreme Court because of the failure of governments to file affidavits for years on end.