Allahabad High Court Orders Signature Expert Probe Into Allegedly Forged Vakalatnama, Examines 'Fraud On Court' By Advocate's Clerk

"Even if the said version is found to be correct, then whether Shri Rajesh Yadav, Clerk, is guilty of filing forged documents before this Court?" Allahabad High Court, in a significant order, directed a signature expert to examine multiple vakalatnamas to determine if forged documents were filed before the court, amounting to a fraud on the administration of justice.

A bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan was dealing with a review application where a litigant alleged that he never engaged a particular advocate, despite a vakalatnama being filed on his behalf containing a false verification by the advocate's clerk.

The dispute stems from a review application filed by Shiv Shankar Singh in matters concerning the Committee of Management, Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College. Singh alleged that he never engaged Advocate R.C. Dwivedi in the present case and accused his relative, Bhola Singh Yadav, of colluding with a rival party. The matter escalated when R.C. Dwivedi was found to be representing conflicting sides in connected writ petitions, prompting allegations that a manufactured vakalatnama was filed in Singh's name.

The primary question before the court was whether the filing of a vakalatnama with an allegedly false verification by an advocate's clerk amounted to a fraud on the court affecting the administration of justice. The court was also called upon to determine the legal effect of a prior order directing fresh elections for the institution's Committee of Management, which had attained finality.

Conflict Of Interest And Disputed Vakalatnama

The court noted significant contradictions in the affidavits filed by applicant Shiv Shankar Singh and his relative Bhola Singh Yadav. Justice Nandan observed that it was difficult to conceive how an advocate filing writ petitions on behalf of one party could simultaneously represent the opposing side in connected matters. The bench pointed out that "clearly after the filing of the writ petition of 2024... there was a conflict of interest" for the advocate in question.

Court Rejects Theory Of Advocate Manufacturing Documents

Despite noting the conflict of interest, the court expressed skepticism over the applicant's claim that he was entirely unaware of the filings. Evaluating the conflicting versions regarding the payment of caveat fees to the advocate's clerk, the bench recorded that "none of the parties support the version of handing over the vakalatnama to Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate." Consequently, the court held it was "unable to accept that Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, would manufacture the vakalatnama."

Clerk's Liability For False Verification

While discarding the theory that the advocate personally manufactured the document, the court took serious note of the admission regarding his clerk. The bench highlighted that the advocate had stated that his clerk, Rajesh Yadav, had verified the signature on the vakalatnama. The court noted that the advocate had "accepted false verification of the signature of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav), on the vakalatnama, by his clerk."

Probing Fraud On The Administration Of Justice

Recognising the gravity of the allegations, the court decided to probe whether the filing of such falsely verified documents constituted a deliberate fraud on the judicial process. The court observed that the averments "are to be dealt with and it is to be whether it amounts to fraud on the court and it is to be treated as one affecting administration of justice."

Directions For Signature Expert Verification

To resolve the factual dispute over the signatures, the court ordered a forensic examination of the documents. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to arrange for a signature expert to examine three specific vakalatnamas kept in a sealed cover. The expert is required to compare the advocate's signature on the caveat application, as well as the disputed signatures of the applicant, against his admitted signatures in connected writ petitions.

Finality Of Orders Regarding Institution Elections

Adverting to the merits of the main dispute involving the Committee of Management, the court examined the validity of the elections purportedly held in 2009. The court referenced a 2016 communication by the then District Inspector of Schools, noting she had specifically "denied her signature on the election proceedings nor such proceedings are there on the dispatch register." The bench noted that previous orders had categorised these 2009 elections as highly doubtful.

Effect Of Dismissal Of Connected Writ Petition

The court observed that a related writ petition challenging the directive for fresh elections was dismissed as infructuous by the consent of both parties in 2023. Analyzing the legal consequence of this dismissal, the court noted that "the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Joint Director of Education has attained finality." Consequently, the bench concluded that no valid elections were held in 2009, and a fresh election ought to have been conducted.

The court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to ensure the signature expert submits their report within two weeks. The matter has been listed in the top ten cases for the next date of hearing, and the parties involved in the factual dispute were directed to remain personally present before the court.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026