'Clarify The Observations To Avoid Miscarriage Of Justice': SCBA & SCAORA Approach Supreme Court To Modify Its Order In 'Fake' Petition Case

The Supreme Court today(January 17) heard a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in the "fake" SLP case, wherein the Court had ordered a full-fledged inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

In this case, the petitioner had denied filing any special leave petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him. While ordering a CBI probe into how the SLP was filed through its order dated September 20, 2024 in Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP & Ors the Court also stated that Advocate-on Record can give an appearance of only those advocates who are authorised to appear. This judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. 

The M.A. claims that the Court's order will cause great prejudice to the members of the Bar if the Court does not clarify that its observations will not have any influence on the CBI's investigation.

The modification pertains to the observation made in para.25 of the judgment: ".From the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that the Respondent No.3 Mr. Sukhpal, son of Rishipal and Respondent No.4 Ms. Rinki, wife of Sukhpal, with the able assistance of a battery of advocates in the Supreme Court namely AOR Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Mr. R.P.S Yadav, Mr. Karan Singh Yadav along with the Advocate and notary Mr. A.N. Singh, and a battery of Advocates in the High Court namely Santosh Kumar Yadav, Jai Singh Yadav, Alok Kumar Yadav and Karan Singh Yadav and many other unknown persons had made brazen attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2 Ajay Katara by filing false proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh in the High Court and Supreme Court, by filing false and fabricated documents.

Though, the said Bhagwan Singh had never met any of the said Advocates nor had instructed any advocates to file the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court and, though he had never met his daughter Rinki and son- in-law, Sukh Pal since the time they had eloped and married with each other in 2013, they with the help and assistance of the said Advocates had tried to misuse and abuse the process of law and malign the stream of justice."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal at the outset submitted that he has never seen such an order passed by the Court in criminal matters where it has not been mentioned that the observations of the Court in the concerned judgment will not influence the trial/investigation/probe.

He added that great injustice had been caused to the members of the Bar and requested that the Court at least add the same lines in the judgment. However, Justice Bela questioned what locus the SCBA and SCAORA has in this case. Sibal responded that the Court can very well dismiss the MA for want of locus but modify the order on its own. 

Justice Bela however stated that whatever the Court held was after a thorough inquiry. She added that in 30 years of her career, she has never witnessed the kind of "culture" which is there in the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the Court kept the matter to be heard next Thursday considering the present composition of the bench was of Justices Bela and PB Varale.

Case Details: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024

Appearances: MA has been filed through Advocate Amit Sharma and under instructions of Vikrant Yadav, Secretary SCBA and Nikhil Jain, Secretary SCAORA.  

Click Here To Read/Download Order