'Lawyers Have Such Unity That You People Can't Be Touched, Won't Permit This To Go On' : Supreme Court In 'Fake' SLP Case; Reserves Orders

The Supreme Court today reserved orders in a case where the petitioner denied filing any Special Leave Petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him.

Notably, the order impugned in the SLP had put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case. However, as informed by respondents during court proceedings, the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner's knowledge).

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter and reserved the verdict, indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly. While Justice Sharma called it "very unfortunate", Justice Trivedi came down heavily on Advocates-on-Record for their callous approach in practising before the Supreme Court (especially insofar as filing of vakalatnamas and appearing before the court was concerned).

"This is the one which came to our notice. In how many cases such things might have been taken advantage of, we don't know. And you people just sign the vakalatnama, get the fees and then get away by saying sorry...Something needs to be done. Atleast we won't shut our eyes. If you have this excuse, that we are practising in Supreme Court, we don't know trial court lawyers or client, that's not done. Advocate-on-Record owes responsibility to the institution also. We are not going to be soft. Don't expect anything from us", said Justice Trivedi.

In response to Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave's prayer that the Advocate-on-Record in the case be let off with a warning this time, the judge added, "There is no system or method in the Supreme Court. I don't know how...it should act like a model code...You have such a solidarity and unity amongst lawyers that you people can't be touched. We will not permit this to go on".

On an earlier date, the Court had sought an explanation from the Notary who attested the affidavit of the petitioner, asking him to explain as to how he attested the petitioner's affidavit in his absence. The Court had also expressed utter shock on finding out that the vakalatnama for filing of the SLP was not signed by the petitioner. Rather, someone had impersonated him and filed the case under a conspiracy.

Today, the Notary appeared and apologized to the Court. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde urged that the bench consider that there was no malice involved on the Notary's part. However, Justice Trivedi shot back that there was "clear dereliction of duty".

During the hearing, the bench also interacted with the petitioner's daughter and her husband. The contact numbers through which they allegedly interacted with the petitioner regarding filing of the SLP were taken.

Background

To recap, Nitish Katara was a Delhi businessman who was murdered in 2002 by one Vikas Yadav, son of politician DP Yadav. The trial court had found it to be a case of honor killing and convicted Vikas Yadav, giving him a life sentence in 2008. In 2016, the Supreme Court had sentenced Vikas Yadav to 25 years' imprisonment without remission.

One AK was a witness in the case, who testified to seeing Nitish Katara with the accused on the fateful night. Apparently, the witness was tried to be poisoned on one occasion and implicated in as many as 37 criminal cases.

The present case began with the petitioner filing an FIR against one SS and others, alleging that they kidnapped his daughter R and took her away. Subsequently, R made a statement that she married SS willingly, however, she was raped by AK, who met the two of them when they eloped.

On an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against AK. An application for recall of this order was filed by R, however, the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal, the present SLP was filed in the name of the petitioner (R's father).

The matter was first listed on May 17, 2024, when notice was issued by a bench of Justices Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal. Thereafter, on July 9, 2024, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the SC Registry stating that on July 3, he was called to a police station in Buduan, UP, where he was given notice of the present case and his signatures were obtained on a form.

In his letter, the petitioner clarified that he had neither engaged any advocate to file the instant SLP, nor signed any vakalatnama or affidavit in that regard. He also claimed that someone else filed the petition under a conspiracy and sought strict action against such person(s).

After that, an office report was placed by the Registry before the bench of Justices Trivedi and Sharma, where it was mentioned that the petitioner claimed to not have filed the SLP.

On July 31, the bench considered the issue of the petitioner's signatures on a vakalatnama. When it was informed by an AoR that he received the petitioner's signed vakalatnama from another advocate (Advocate C), and did not witness the petitioner sign it himself, the bench expressed serious displeasure.

When the matter was taken up subsequently, the concerned Notary entered appearance and admitted the mistake of attesting the petitioner's affidavit in his absence, based on identification of his signatures by Advocate C. SS, on the other hand, stated that he and and his wife R met the petitioner 3-4 years back, when he gave R a signed vakalatnama. The same, he claimed, was given to Advocate E.

Case Title : BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UP | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18885/2024