The Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled that an advocate who merely attests to or identifies a deponent in an affidavit does not become responsible for the truthfulness of the statements contained within it. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that such an act does not make the advocate a party to the affidavit’s contents.
The Court made this crucial observation while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by a litigant and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG). It termed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the advocate in question as a “manifestly a case of malicious prosecution… at the behest of the opponent litigant” and imposed costs of ₹50,000 each on the complainant and the BCMG.
Background of the Case
The ruling came in a case connected to another matter before the same bench. A complaint was filed before the BCMG by Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad against Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. The complainant, Bhakad, was a former lecturer in a dispute with his ex-employer, Ismail Yusuf Junior College. In a suit filed by Bhakad, the college had filed a chamber summons to amend its written statement.
The documents filed with the chamber summons were supported by an affidavit. The gravamen of the complaint was that Advocate Shastri had identified the deponent of this affidavit.
The Complainant’s Allegations
The complainant, Bhakad, alleged that by identifying the deponent, Advocate Shastri had effectively attested to the correctness of the contents of the affidavit and the chamber summons “as being of her personal knowledge.” He argued that since the statements in the affidavit were ultimately found to be false, the advocate, by subscribing her signature for identification, had lent support to false recitals and was equally responsible for offences of “forgery, perjury, or cheating.”
The BCMG registered the complaint and referred it to its Disciplinary Committee for inquiry. This was challenged by Advocate Shastri in the Bombay High Court, which quashed the proceedings. The complainant and the BCMG then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Unambiguous Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, finding the allegations in the complaint to be “wholly absurd and untenable.” The bench found that the advocate’s role was strictly limited to identification and did not extend to vouching for the affidavit’s contents.
In a clear and direct finding, the Court held:
“An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit.”
The Court concluded that the complaint was not merely without substance but was also malicious. It observed that the complaint was “founded on malicious and spiteful insinuations directed against the advocate who merely identified the opposite party in an affidavit.”
Sharply criticizing the Bar Council’s handling of the matter, the bench stated that the steps taken by the BCMG to register the complaint and refer it for inquiry were “illegal on the face of the record, bordering on perversity.”
Decision and Imposition of Costs
The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s order quashing the complaint and held that the petitions were “devoid of merit.” It noted that the complainant and the BCMG had caused “immeasurable grief and harassment” to the respondent-advocate.
Consequently, the Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions. It imposed costs of ₹50,000 each on the complainant, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The Court directed that the amount be paid to Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri.
