E-Paper
SC talks tough on ‘suppression, falsehood’ in pleas by lawyers
In the matter filed by Sai Sadan Builders and Developers, the court said, “We will not tolerate unscrupulous developers making blatant false statements before this court.”
Blatant falsehood and suppression of facts in petitions filed before the court will not be tolerated, the Supreme Court remarked on Tuesday, pointing out that it comes across false statements in nearly 10% of all matters listed every day.
A bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka made the remarks while refusing to entertain a plea filed by a Mumbai-based real estate developer who approached the top court against demolition of an illegal building ordered by the Bombay high court. The petition claimed that the petitioner – Sai Sadan Builders and Developers — had applied for regularisation of the building. The plea, however, did not contain the said application while a letter of the concerned architect for the project was attached instead.
“Every day it is happening...There are blatant false statements in nearly 10% of all matters which are listed every day. We are saying it with great responsibility. We will not tolerate this,” the bench, also comprising justice Augustine George Masih, remarked.
In the matter filed by the real estate developer, the court said, “We will not tolerate unscrupulous developers making blatant false statements before this court.”
After the lawyer representing the petitioner tendered apology, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Later in the day, the same bench encountered a series of falsehoods while entertaining a batch of 27 criminal pleas seeking premature release of life convicts. In all the cases, related to Delhi, the convicts had misrepresented regarding conviction in multiple cases, furlough period having expired, and years of actual sentence undergone.
In a related development arising from an order passed on Monday, the same bench issued a notice to senior advocate Rishi Malhotra for misleading the court to get premature release of a life convict. The case pertained to a convict, Jitender, who was directed by the top court in 2019 to undergo 30 years in prison without remission.
The 2019 order was not produced in the petition seeking remission. The lawyer who filed the plea, Jaydeep Pati, informed the court about the order and wished to withdraw the petition. The court then asked for an affidavit from Pati. The lawyer in the affidavit said he was a junior in the chamber of Malhotra and signed the petition as an advocate-on-record (AoR) having full faith in the senior.
“To say the least, the contents are shocking,” the bench said on Monday after observing the affidavit. It posted the matter on October 21.
