Supreme Court fines for false affidavit, stresses importance of truth in justice system

The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of contempt for making a deliberate false statement in an affidavit, imposing a fine of Rs. 2,500 each to be paid within four weeks. Failure to pay would result in one month of simple imprisonment. The Court emphasized the seriousness of filing false affidavits and their impact on the administration of justice, highlighting the need to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. The Contempt Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and a second petition was rejected without cost.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Wrong assertion of facts in an affidavit.
2. Contempt of Court by filing false affidavits.
3. Determination of punishment for contempt.

Summary:

Issue 1: Wrong Assertion of Facts in an Affidavit
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of wrong assertion of facts by the respondents in an affidavit filed before the Court. The affidavit, filed by Respondent No. 1 in an interlocutory application (IA No. 1/94) in a Transfer Petition (Civil No. 745/93), falsely stated that no property had been sold or steps taken to sell the property, despite knowing that the property was sold long prior.

Issue 2: Contempt of Court by Filing False Affidavits
The Court considered whether the false statement in the affidavit constituted contempt of court u/s 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court emphasized that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Afzal v. State of Haryana and Rita Markand v. Surjit Singh Arora, to highlight the seriousness of filing false affidavits and their impact on the administration of justice.

Issue 3: Determination of Punishment for Contempt
The Court held that the respondents were guilty of contempt for making a deliberate false statement in the affidavit. The Court noted that while the statement did not result in any immediate advantage for the respondents, it was a serious matter that could not be ignored. The Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500 each on the respondents, to be paid within four weeks, failing which they would suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The fine was directed to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

The Contempt Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The second petition for direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation for examination of documents was rejected without any order for cost.

---