Supreme Court Initiates Enquiry After Petitioner Denies Filing Petition & Claims Ignorance Of Advocates Who Represented Him

The Supreme Court today expressed utter shock in a case where the petitioner, in whose name a special leave petition (criminal) was filed, appeared and told the court that he had not filed the case. Rather, someone had impersonated him and filed it under a conspiracy, he claimed.

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, the matter came up for hearing yesterday, when a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma came upon an office report placed before it by the Registry, where it was mentioned that the petitioner claimed to not have filed the SLP.

Yesterday, the petitioner also entered appearance through Advocate A and Advocate-on-Record B, and reiterated that he did not file the SLP. On the contrary, Advocate C, instructed to appear for the petitioner by AoR D (who filed the first vakalatnama in the SLP), claimed that the petitioner signed the vakalatnama in his presence.

Hearing the parties, the court called for the original papers from the Registry to verify the signature of the petitioner on the vakalatnama filed alongwith the SLP. It also directed AoR D (who signed on the vakalatnama, identifying and attesting the signature of the petitioner) and the petitioner to remain present on today.

Today, AoR D appeared in court and stated that although he identified the signatures of the petitioner in vakalatnama, that was not correct. He admitted that he had received the vakalatnama with the signatures of the petitioner from Advocate C.

When the court turned to him, Advocate C changed his stance and claimed that he was handed over the case papers, including a signed vakalatnama from petitioner, by Advocate E (who practices in Allahabad High Court).

On hearing the counsels involved, Justice Trivedi commented, "Process is being misused...in Supreme Court, if this is the state of affairs, what will happen to other courts?".

The bench also interacted with the petitioner and asked him if he knew Advocates C, D and E. To this, the petitioner replied in the negative. When it was enquired as to how he came to know about the instant proceedings having been filed in his name, the petitioner replied that he was served a notice by the police.

This led the bench to question why a petitioner was issued notice by the police in an SLP, however, no concrete answer was forthcoming from any of the counsels.

Ultimately, before passing any further orders, the court sought the presence of Advocate E. To this effect, Advocate C was directed to furnish Advocate E's full name, address and phone number. The petitioner was also directed to file an affidavit of correct facts.

The matter is next listed on August 9.

"What kind of culture you have developed here in Supreme Court, I don't know! Nobody shoulders any responsibility. Anybody can appear anytime. There will be 10 lawyers listed in the order sheet, nobody would be present. At no point of time, Advocate-on-Record would remain present! Is this the way you practice in the Supreme Court?" exclaimed Justice Bela M Trivedi during the hearing.

When other counsels sought to interject as "members of the Bar", saying "we are all lawyers", Justice Trivedi shot down the interference saying, "who are you? you don't know the facts...why should you? You can't. He (Advocate-on-Record) is a lawyer, he is answerable. Don't interfere." Justice Sharma, on the other hand, supplemented, "this is a case where an innocent man who was a witness has been framed in 37 criminal cases, so please don't speak."