'Disgusted That This Court Is Repeatedly Taken On A Ride': Supreme Court On Suppression Of Facts In Yet Another Remission Plea

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 29) expressed disgust over repeated instances of material suppression in remission petitions after discovering that a convict seeking remission had suppressed material facts by simultaneously having approached the Delhi High Court for similar relief without disclosing this to the Supreme Court.

“In one sentence, we feel disgusted that this court is taken on a ride in such matters, not in one matter, but several matters”, Justice Abhay Oka said.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to the petitioner to explain her actions and observed that stringent measures, including contempt proceedings might be required for suppressing facts.

“Even today, the petitioner has not pointed out to this Court the fact that a writ petition for same relief was filed in the Delhi High Court in which the aforesaid two orders were passed. The orders are placed on record by learned ASG. Prima facie, it appears to us that a stringent action will have to be taken against the petitioner for suppression of facts including the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We, therefore, issue notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain her conduct”, the Court observed.

The Court also directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to appoint an advocate to represent the petitioner. The appointed advocate has to meet the petitioner in custody, explain her situation, and file an affidavit detailing her conduct and identify on whose advice she filed two parallel proceedings.

Justice Oka noted this to be the “50th or 51st case” involving such suppression.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Delhi government to consider her case for permanent remission. On October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice and extended her time to surrender.

However, during the hearing on Friday, Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare submitted copies of two orders passed by the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by her seeking the same relief.

1. Order dated October 16, 2024: The Delhi High Court issued notice on the petition and granted the petitioner two weeks to surrender. The Court also allowed her to apply for parole.
2. Order dated November 5, 2024:
   The High Court noted the petitioner's confusion about the surrender timeline, extended her time to surrender till November 8, 2024, and clarified the sequence of orders from both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the HC order dated October 16, 2024, was not disclosed to it on October 21, 2024, when it granted an extension for surrender. The Court noted that if the earlier High Court order had been brought to its attention, the Supreme Court's order would not have been passed.

The Court ordered her to surrender immediately if she had not already done so. If the surrender did not occur by November 30, 2024, the Court directed the State Police to take her into custody.

The matter was listed for further hearing on December 16, 2024.

Recurring Issue of Suppression in Remission Pleas

This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has faced the issue to suppression of facts in remission pleas. Justice Oka and Justice Masih have earlier raised concerns about repeated misrepresentations in remission related pleas.

Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who represents the present petitioner, is facing scrutiny for other instances of false statements in remission pleas as well. In one instance, a petition filed through AoR Jaydeep Pati, who claimed to have filed the petition received from Malhotra, omitted a material fact regarding a prior Supreme Court judgment.

The Court criticised AoRs relying on instructions from seniors without directly interacting with clients. The Court remarked that at least half a dozen cases of false statements in remission pleas had surfaced in the recent past, prompting the Court to involve the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for assistance in framing guidelines to address role of legal professionals in such cases. Subsequently, the Court also sought the view of the Supreme Court Bar Association to address the issue.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also submitted that the process for conferring senior advocate designations might require re-evaluation to address this issue.

The same bench in September dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought based on false statements. The Court had expressed concern about the strain such cases place on the judicial system, emphasizing that trust between the Bar and the Bench is essential for the proper functioning of the Court.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) No.418/2024

Case Title – Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)