IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate

21 September 2024 9:35 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., delivered a scathing judgment condemning the abuse of judicial process. The court uncovered a fraudulent Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, without his consent or knowledge, and directed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter. The court held that the fraudulent activities, involving multiple advocates, sought to undermine the judiciary and pollute the stream of justice. This landmark decision is a critical move to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

The case revolved around the filing of an SLP challenging orders of the Allahabad High Court. During the proceedings, it emerged that Bhagwan Singh, the named appellant, had neither authorized the filing of the SLP nor was aware of the proceedings initiated in his name. The false SLPs were orchestrated by respondents Sukhpal Singh and Rinki, Bhagwan Singh's son-in-law and daughter, respectively, in collusion with advocates who submitted forged documents, including a falsified Vakalatnama purportedly signed by Bhagwan Singh. The petition sought to recall a 2019 High Court order quashing charges against Ajay Katara, a key witness in the high-profile Nitish Katara murder case.

The central issue was whether the SLPs were filed fraudulently using forged documents, without the knowledge or consent of Bhagwan Singh. The court noted that such fraud, especially when perpetrated by advocates, constitutes a grave abuse of legal process. The court observed:

“Often brazen attempts are being made to abuse and misuse the process of law by committing frauds on Courts. This is one such case where such an attempt has been made to pollute the stream of justice.” [Para 4]

Multiple advocates were involved in the fraudulent filings. Advocate-on-Record Anubhav Yashwant Yadav and several others admitted to signing and submitting documents, including a falsified Vakalatnama and affidavits, without verifying Bhagwan Singh's identity or obtaining his authorization. The court emphasized the high ethical standards expected from advocates and noted:

“Advocates are officers of the Court. Their conduct must conform to the Rules of Conduct and Etiquettes… This fraud was facilitated by multiple legal professionals, making it even more egregious.” [Para 31]

Ajay Katara, a key witness in the Nitish Katara murder case, had been falsely implicated in multiple legal cases, including this one. The court highlighted the importance of witness protection, stating:

“The respondent no. 2 – Ajay Katara, the only independent prosecution witness in the Nitish Katara case, continues to face intimidation and false cases.” [Para 26-28]

The court dismissed the appeals as fraudulent and without merit, condemning the parties for their misuse of judicial processes.

The Supreme Court directed the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation into the fraudulent filings, including the involvement of the respondents and the advocates. The CBI was instructed to report its findings by November 25, 2024. The court ordered:

“We deem it appropriate to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI… to investigate all the links leading to the commission of the alleged crimes and fraud on court.” [Para 32]

The court urged the Bar Council of India and the Government of India to take necessary corrective actions, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to

“The legal profession is perceived to be a noble profession… There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the court.” [Para 33]

The court directed that advocates' names should only be listed in court records if they are authorized to appear and argue on behalf of a party, addressing concerns over misuse of appearance slips. [Para 42]

The Supreme Court's decision in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. serves as a stern warning against the misuse of the legal system. By ordering a CBI investigation and setting strict guidelines for legal practitioners, the court has taken significant steps to uphold the integrity of the justice system and protect the sanctity of court processes.

Date of ORDER: September 20, 2024

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Latest Legal News