In a startling development that has the legal community in a stir, the Supreme Court of India is probing an unusual case where a petitioner denied filing a special leave petition (criminal) and claimed ignorance of the advocates who purportedly represented him. The case, which underscores potential judicial vulnerabilities, has exposed a convoluted web of misrepresentation and deceit.
The controversy began when the petitioner appeared in court, shocking the justices by asserting that he had never filed the petition. He disclosed that his first awareness of the case came when he was summoned to a police station and pressured to sign documents. He claims to have never engaged any lawyer or signed any legal affidavits or vakalatnamas related to the case.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, initially became involved when an office report highlighted the petitionerโs claims of non-involvement. During yesterdayโs hearing, contradictions deepened as conflicting statements emerged from the legal representatives involved. Advocate A and Advocate-on-Record B, appearing for the petitioner, supported his claim of non-involvement, while Advocate C, acting on instructions from AoR D, insisted the petitioner had authorized the vakalatnama in his presence.
In a dramatic turn of events in todayโs hearing, AoR D recanted earlier statements, admitting that he did not witness the petitioner sign the vakalatnama but had received it from Advocate C. The plot thickened as Advocate C then pointed to Advocate E, based in the Allahabad High Court, as the original handler of the dubious documents.
Justice Trivedi sharply criticized the apparent misuse of judicial processes, highlighting the gravity of such misrepresentations not just in the Supreme Court but as a potential endemic issue throughout the judiciary. The bench also interrogated the petitioner, who denied any knowledge of Advocates C, D, and E, and revealed that his only notification regarding the case came through a police notice.
Also Read
In an attempt to unravel the truth, the court has now summoned Advocate E and instructed the petitioner to submit an affidavit detailing the correct facts of his involvement. The next hearing, scheduled for August 9, promises further exploration into this complex issue.
