The Supreme Court on Tuesday saw new twists in the unfolding mystery of a ‘ghost litigant’ who allegedly secured a favourable order by misleading the court with a fake compromise in a land dispute case. The case, already under scrutiny, deepened further as a third lawyer—whose name appeared on the Supreme Court’s order sheet—categorically denied any connection to the matter.
The court had earlier quashed orders passed by a Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court against the litigant based on a purported compromise. However, months later, the real opposing party surfaced and informed the court that no compromise had been entered into and that he had not authorised any lawyer to represent him before the apex court.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard the matter on Tuesday. Advocate Ratan Lal, one of the four lawyers named in the December order, appeared before the court in compliance with its previous direction. He firmly stated, “I did not do anything and have nothing to do with the case.”
With this, all three traceable lawyers named in the order sheet—each with recognised standing in litigation—have now denied involvement. The fourth advocate listed remains untraceable. One of the advocates named is reportedly no longer in active legal practice, and both he and his daughter, whose name also appeared, were unaware their names had been used.
Given these troubling revelations, both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged the bench to order an in-depth investigation. They expressed suspicion that an outsider, not members of the legal profession, was behind the fabrication.
SCAORA President Vipin Nair submitted, “The blame or charge of any wrongdoing can’t be straightaway ascribed to AORs or lawyers since the pleadings indicate that the possibility of the petitioner engaging in fabrication can’t be ruled out. A thorough enquiry is therefore necessary.”
The associations further suggested that a police investigation and forensic analysis of the documents be conducted to identify the source of the alleged fraud.
The bench said it would consider all aspects and decide on appropriate action.
The incident, which hinges on an alleged fake compromise agreement, raises serious concerns about misuse of court processes and possible identity fraud within the judicial system. The Supreme Court had passed its December 2023 order based on the now-contested compromise agreement, relying on what appeared to be duly represented parties and counsel.
As the mystery around the ghost litigant and the forged representation continues to unravel, the court is now tasked with deciding whether to call in law enforcement to trace the real culprit behind this manipulation of the judicial process.
