Supreme Court Raises Concern Over False Statements In Remission Pleas, Requests SCAORA President To Assist

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 30) highlighted another instance of false statements being made in remission petitions and requested the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) Vipin Nair to assist the court on this issue.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that recently several cases have surfaced in which false statements were made in writ petitions and SLPs seeking premature release. Given the recurring nature of such issues, the Court requested the President of SCAORA to appear and assist the Court at the next hearing.

“Considering what is stated in the affidavit filed by Shri Jaydeep Pati (who filed the petition) and considering the fact that in recent past this court has noticed that at least in half a dozen cases false statements are being made in the writ petitions or in the SLPs filed seeking relief of premature release, we require assistance of the President of SCAORA. We request the President of SCAORA to appear and assist the court on the next date”, the Court directed.

Justice Oka remarked, “We are requesting the chairperson of SCAORA because we should not be dealing with such matters in the Supreme Court.”

The bench expressed serious concerns over the conduct of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) who had filed the petition.

Justice Oka questioned the Advocate-on-Record Jaydeep Pati who filed the petition asking whether it was appropriate to file petitions somebody gave him without reading or applying any judgment to the content. The Court remarked, “Will you blindly file any petition somebody gives you without application of mind, without reading it? How can you continue as an Advocate on Record? Is the way you conduct yourself in this court?”

Noting Pati's stand in his affidavit, Justice Oka added, “Let us say your stand is bonafide. Can you say in Supreme Court that somebody gave me a petition that was ready and I simply filed it? Is this the practice you follow that somebody has sent to your type draft of the petition and you simply filed it without taking instructions from the client?”

The AOR tendered an unconditional apology.

Justice Oka continued to express concern, saying, “This is happening day in and day out in the court. False statements are being made in such pleas because the courts are liberal when they see a case where premature release is not granted. And how many matters do we have to deal with by pointing out false data and false statements made? How many cases do we have to keep on doing this?”

In its order, the Court stated that the contents of the affidavit filed by Pati were “shocking.” The Court issued a notice returnable on October 21, 2024 to Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, asking him to appear before the Court and explain the statements made in the affidavit filed by Pati. The Registry was directed to forward copies of all orders passed in the SLP, along with a copy of the affidavit, to the office of Senior Advocate Malhotra.

On September 2, 2024, the Supreme Court had noted material misrepresentation in the SLP. The petition sought relief for premature release, but key facts had been suppressed, including a prior judgment which restored the petitioner's sentence of 30 years without remission.

The Court, deeming this a gross case of misrepresentation, had issued a notice to Advocate-on-Record Jaydeep Pati, requiring him to explain his conduct by filing an affidavit.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed false statements in remission petitions.

The same of bench earlier this month dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought based on false statements. The Court remarked on the increasing trend of petitioners submitting inaccurate data regarding the time they had served in prison. The Court had noted that this was the sixth or seventh case within a span of three weeks where such false statements had been identified.

The Supreme Court had expressed concern about the strain such cases place on the judicial system, emphasizing that trust between the Bar and the Bench is essential for the proper functioning of the Court.

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024

Case title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.