In a strong rebuke, the Orissa High Court cautioned a lawyer for attempting to mislead the court by submitting a forged School Transfer Certificate (S.T.C.) to claim the appellant’s juvenility in CRLA No. 389 of 2020. The court, while rejecting the interim application, emphasized that though “justice may be blind,” the judiciary relies on the integrity of legal professionals to uphold the law. The Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash delivered the judgment, underscoring the importance of honesty in legal proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case concerned appellant Jata @ Sanatan Hessa, who had filed an appeal against his conviction in a criminal matter. In support of his appeal, Hessa’s legal team submitted a School Transfer Certificate to establish that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense, hoping to seek a more lenient legal treatment.
However, discrepancies soon arose over the authenticity of the document. The appellant’s brother-in-law, Gania Gagaria, who was involved in procuring the certificate, provided conflicting affidavits. Initially, he claimed that the document was handed directly to the appellant’s lawyer, Mr. Nityananda Panda, but later reversed his statement, alleging that he gave the certificate to the appellant during a prison visit in 2018. The inconsistencies raised suspicion of forgery and prompted the court to intervene.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Submission of Forged Documents: The primary legal issue revolved around the submission of the S.T.C., which was allegedly forged to falsely claim that the appellant was a juvenile. This raised serious concerns about the conduct of the appellant’s legal team and the ethical obligations of legal practitioners.
2. Contradictory Statements and Perjury: The case also highlighted the issue of conflicting affidavits, as Gania Gagaria’s changing statements called into question the reliability of the evidence submitted to the court.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The High Court firmly rejected the interim application based on the forged document and issued a cautionary note to the legal fraternity. Quoting landmark judgments, the court emphasized the duty of advocates to uphold the truth. The Bench declared, “Justice may be blind, but the judges are not sightless,” and expressed dismay at the growing trend of submitting forged documents in court to obtain favourable outcomes.
Justice S.K. Sahoo stated, “It is not only the power but also the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of the courts and the majesty of law. If for proper administration of justice, it is required to take strict view, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.” The court noted that such fraudulent submissions damage the trust placed in legal professionals and hinder the administration of justice.
While the court considered initiating contempt proceedings against Gania Gagaria for his contradictory statements, it ultimately showed leniency, accepting his unconditional apology and considering the recent death of his mother. Gagaria was released from custody, but the court left a stern warning against any future misconduct.
Ethical Responsibilities of Lawyers
The judgment stressed the pivotal role of lawyers as “officers of the court” and emphasized their responsibility to maintain the integrity of the legal process. The court referenced multiple past rulings to remind lawyers of their duty to verify the authenticity of documents before submitting them.
In a powerful observation, the Bench quoted from previous legal precedents, asserting that the “High Court is a temple; its presiding deity is Justice. Lawyers are its priests. It is most unfortunate when priests undermine the sanctity and purity of the temple.” The court urged the legal fraternity to adhere strictly to professional ethics, warning that violations would lead to the erosion of public trust in the justice system.
The court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to inform the appellant, Jata @ Sanatan Hessa, of his lawyer’s withdrawal from the case, giving him the option to appoint a new counsel. If unable to secure a lawyer, Hessa would be assigned representation by the Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case No.: CRLA No. 389 of 2020
Bench: Justice S.K. Sahoo, Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Nityananda Panda (withdrew representation)
Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. P.B. Tripathy
