We Trust Members Of Bar When We Hear Cases, But False Statements Shake Our Faith : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought by the advocate by pleading false statements in the writ petition as well as before the Court. Taking an exception to the continuous false statements made in the petition for remission, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked: "A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein...
The Supreme Court recently dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought by the advocate by pleading false statements in the writ petition as well as before the Court.
Taking an exception to the continuous false statements made in the petition for remission, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked: "A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein a grievance is made about non grant of permanent remission. During the last three weeks, this is the 6th or 7th case which we have come across where blatantly false statements have been made in the pleadings."
In the first petition, four petitioners sought remission on grounds of having completed 14 years of imprisonment. However, the Court found that only petitioner no.1 and 3 have actually undergone a sentence of 14 years. Dismissing the plea of petitioner no.2 and 4, the Court directed the State Government to consider the premature release of petitioner no. 3 in accordance with the applicable remission policy.
In the other petition, it was pleaded that all five petitioners had undergone an actual sentence of more than 14 years. But the Court found that two petitioners have not gone actual 14 years of imprisonment. Taking leniency of the fact that out of the two petitioners, petitioner no.4 has undergone 13 years and 7 months, the Court found that petitioner no. 3 has made completely false statements.
The Court considers the submissions made by the State Government that petitioner no. 3 has now completed 14 years and his case is being considered along with petitioner no.1, 2, and 5, dismissed the petition.
On Monday, the Court had imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on a petitioner who tried seeking remission by suppressing facts. In the present case, although the Court found it to be a 'fit case' to impose exemplary costs refused to penalise the petitioners for the mistakes committed by their lawyers.
In regards to the first petition, the Court found that the advocate had also made false statements regarding petitioner no. 2 and 4 before the jail authorities. In an email addressed to the jail authorities, the advocate stated that the two had completed 14 years of imprisonment.
The advocate has also falsely averred in the writ petition that the furlough of all four petitioners expired as of the date of filing the writ petition. Whereas the furlough has not expired for petitioner no.1. Contrary to this, the advocate took an admitted position before the Court that the furlough of only three petitioners had expired. Based on the factually incorrect statement, the Court had on an earlier occasion granted interim relief to the three petitioners.
Dismissing the plea of petitioner no. 2 and 4 for which the advocate had resorted to making blatantly false statements, the Court said: "On a miscellaneous hearing day, there are 60 to 80 cases on the cause list of every Bench. It is not possible for the Judges to go through each and every page of each and every case listed before the Court, though we make an endeavour to go through every case very meticulously. Our system works on faith.
We trust the members of the Bar when we hear cases. But, when we come across cases like this, our faith is shaken. Thus, there are not only false statements made in the Writ Petition, but a false statement was made before this Court which is recorded in our order dated 19th July, 2024. The false statements were repeated in the e-mail dated 15th July, 2024 addressed by the then Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners to the Jail Authorities."
The Court also observed the frequent tendency followed in the remission petition where the offences of the petitioners seeking remissions are not disclosed specifically. In both petitions, the Court found that the petitioners had been convicted for different offences in different cases and despite that, the offences have been stated in a manner which gives an impression that all have been convicted for the same offence.
The Court stated: "In a petition seeking a writ of mandamus for premature release, the nature of offence is a very important consideration."
Case Details: Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl) No. 296/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 695