Fraud on the Court through fabricated filings, with strict limits on advocate certification and appearance entries.
False and unauthorised special leave proceedings were used to illustrate how fabricated vakalatnamas, affidavits and irregular appearances can amount to fraud on the Court. The text emphasises that an advocate-on-record must certify execution only in the manner permitted by the Supreme Court Rules, while notarial attestation must comply with the Notaries Act and Notaries Rules; serious lapses may call for corrective and investigative action. It also clarifies that appearance entries in the record of proceedings should be limited to advocates actually authorised to appear or assist on the hearing date, so that court records reflect genuine representation and protect the integrity of proceedings.
Issues: (i) whether the special leave proceedings were initiated and pursued through false and fabricated documents and without the knowledge or authority of the person in whose name they were filed; (ii) whether the conduct of the advocates, advocate-on-record and notary required corrective action in light of the Supreme Court Rules, the Notaries Act and the Notaries Rules; (iii) whether the practice of marking appearances in the record of proceedings had to be confined to advocates actually authorised to appear and argue.
Issue (i): whether the special leave proceedings were initiated and pursued through false and fabricated documents and without the knowledge or authority of the person in whose name they were filed.
Analysis: The record showed conflicting versions from the advocates and the notary about the source and execution of the vakalatnama and affidavit, while the person in whose name the proceedings were filed consistently denied filing the proceedings, executing the vakalatnama, or having any contact with the persons who allegedly procured the papers. The original records from the High Court also disclosed serious irregularities, including filings and appearances without a valid vakalatnama on behalf of the concerned person. On the material before it, the Court found a brazen attempt to misuse the judicial process by filing proceedings in another person's name through fabricated papers.
Conclusion: The proceedings were found to be false, fabricated and unauthorised, amounting to a fraud on the Court, against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the conduct of the advocates, advocate-on-record and notary required corrective action in light of the Supreme Court Rules, the Notaries Act and the Notaries Rules.
Analysis: The Court referred to the duties of an advocate-on-record in certifying execution of a vakalatnama only in the manner permitted by the Supreme Court Rules, and to the statutory functions and duties of notaries under the Notaries Act and the Notaries Rules. It held that the conduct disclosed serious professional lapses in the attestation and certification process, warranting corrective institutional action and reference of the matter for further inquiry.
Conclusion: The conduct of the concerned advocates and the notary was found to be serious and deserving of corrective and investigative action.
Issue (iii): whether the practice of marking appearances in the record of proceedings had to be confined to advocates actually authorised to appear and argue.
Analysis: The Court interpreted the online appearance module notice to mean that only advocates actually appearing or assisting in the hearing could be marked in the record of proceedings. It rejected the practice of entering names of advocates who were neither present nor authorised to argue, and directed the registry and advocates-on-record to follow the circular in its true sense.
Conclusion: Appearance entries were directed to be confined to advocates authorised to appear and argue on the relevant date.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with directions aimed at preserving the integrity of court proceedings, ensuring proper professional responsibility, and preventing misuse of the judicial process, while the matter remained open for the CBI report.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
