How Can Litigants Verify Authenticity Of Judicial Orders? Delhi High Court Issues Directions In Suo Motu Case

The Delhi High Court has initiated a suo motu case after a forged and fabricated judicial order was allegedly handed over to a female undertrial prisoner by the jail visiting advocate.

While ordering an inquiry into the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued various directions to the concerned stakeholders, including the general public, to verify the authenticity of judicial orders and to exercise caution and diligence when such orders are handed over to them.

“In this Court's opinion, in such facts and circumstances, and faced with a situation where a forged/fabricated order of this Court has been allegedly handed over to an undertrial prisoner, it is the duty of this Court to remind all litigants that they themselves can also verify the authenticity of such orders by click of a button or due caution,” the court said.

The matter was taken up suo motu by the court after mentioning by the mother of the undertrial prisoner. She stated that the jail visiting advocate had handed over an order of the court to her daughter wherein it was mentioned that judgment in her bail plea was reserved four months ago.

However, on enquiring, the court found that no bail application was filed on behalf of the undertrial prisoner. It further observed that the order which was handed over to the accused was forged and fabricated and was prepared on the basis of another petition filed last year which was disposed of.

“It is a serious concern of this Court as to how a forged and fabricated order of this Court has been prepared and the litigant herein was under impression that this Court has reserved the order on bail application of her daughter for last four months, whereas there is no order pending reserved before this Court for more than two/three months, at any point of time,” the court observed.

Justice Sharma appointed Advocate Harsh Prabhakar as amicus curiae in the case to assist the mother in case FIR is registered on the basis of suo motu proceedings. The court directed its Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the concerned SHO.

The court issued the following directions:

- Authentic orders downloaded from the website of this Court i.e. 'https://delhihighcourt.nic.in' will feature an 'emblem' of Delhi High Court and a 'QR code' for verification on the top of the order, and a timestamp indicating when the order was downloaded from the site of Delhi High Court on the bottom of the order.

- Similarly, in the case of a judgment downloaded from the Delhi High Court's website, it will include a 'QR Code' that can be scanned for verification. The judgment will also bear a digital signature that will be visible on every page of the judgment.

- Further, every order or judgment can be downloaded from the website of the Delhi High Court free of cost i.e. without payment of any money.

- If a party receives an order marked as 'Dasti', the first step they should take is to verify whether the order contains a specific line directing it to be provided as 'Dasti', and secondly, whether the copy of the order has been stamped and signed by concerned officers of Registry.

- Similarly, when the parties are presented with an order which is 'Dasti' under the signatures of the 'Court Master', the first step parties should take is to verify whether the order contains a specific line directing so, and whether the copy of order bears the stamp and signatures of the Court Master concerned.

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 312

Click Here To Read Order