The Delhi High Court has directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and an investigation by the Bar Council of India (BCI) into the conduct of certain advocates after it was revealed that a writ petition was filed using forged documents and without the authorization of the purported petitioner.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the matter, observed that the “judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse,” and ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South-East, to lodge an FIR and proceed with the investigation. The Court further referred the matter to the BCI to investigate the role of the counsels involved, Ms. Awanitika and Mr. Suraj Singh.
Background of the Case
The writ petition, titled Adity Shivcharan Rathod vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., was purportedly filed by Adity Shivcharan Rathod. The petition sought directions against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take action against alleged illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by Respondent No. 4 on a property in Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
During the hearing, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the petition had been filed using the petitioner’s name without her authorization. The counsel for Respondent No. 4 informed the Court that multiple petitions were being filed under different names, through the same counsel, using the same set of documents and raising similar pleas.
Specific reference was made to a previous order dated August 20, 2025, in Adity Shivcharan Rathod Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 12607/2025), where the petitioner had allegedly claimed ownership of a different property based on forged documents, including a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Agreement to Sell.
Police Investigation and Status Report
Following these revelations, the Court had previously directed the DCP (South-East) to investigate how different petitions were being filed by the petitioner claiming ownership of various properties.
In the Status Report dated December 10, 2025, the DCP (South-East) submitted the findings of the investigation. The police successfully traced and examined the petitioner, Aditi Shivcharan Rathod.
According to the Status Report, Ms. Rathod categorically stated that “she has not filed writ petition W.P.(Civil) 6974/2025.” She further denied purchasing any property in Delhi or filing any petitions against unauthorized construction. She denied her signatures on the property documents attached to the petition, stating that “some unknown persons have misused her Aadhar ID, prepared the above said forged property documents in her name and filed the same in Hon’ble Delhi High Court.”
The police report further highlighted that efforts were made to trace the alleged executors and witnesses of the property documents, but “no one is traceable.”
Regarding the legal representation, the police investigation revealed that the counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Awanitika, was traced to an address in Defence Colony. She submitted to the police that the matters were referred to her by an advocate named Mr. Suraj Singh, whom she met at the Delhi High Court. However, the police reported that “the Mobile No. is found not exist and so far, there is no clue about advocate Suraj Singh.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Pushkarna noted that the Status Report made it evident that Ms. Rathod’s Aadhaar Card had been misused by unknown persons to manufacture forged documents.
The Court expressed serious concern over the involvement of legal professionals in such activities. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2025) 6 SCC 416, the Court quoted:
“To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings… are the acts attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They are also acts of frauds committed not only on the person sought to be falsely implicated… but is a fraud committed on the Courts.”
The Court further referenced the Supreme Court’s observation that “No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud.”
Decision and Directions
In view of the “grave revelations,” the High Court issued the following directions:
- Police Action: The police are directed to continue the investigation and carry out proceedings in accordance with the law, “including, lodging of First Information Report (“FIR”) and subsequent appropriate proceedings.”
- Bar Council Investigation: The matter is referred to the Bar Council of India to “examine and investigate the role of the aforesaid counsels, i.e., Ms. Awanitika and Mr. Suraj Singh, and take appropriate action.” The BCI is also directed to trace Mr. Suraj Singh.
- MCD Action: Regarding the property in question, the MCD was directed to take appropriate action subject to any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD), noting that a stay had already been granted by the ATMCD in favor of Respondent No. 4.
The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of with these directions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Adity Shivcharan Rathod vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 6974/2025 & CM APPL. 31502/2025, CM APPL. 55086/2025, CM APPL. 59748/2025
- Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna
