SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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