Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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

21 September 2024 3:40 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.

Similar News