The Supreme Court recently dismissed two writ petitions seeking remission, where false statements were made in the pleadings and during court proceedings.

Expressing concern over the growing trend of misleading petitions, the Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih criticized the advocates for making blatantly false statements in a bid to secure relief for their clients.

The Bench remarked on the alarming frequency of such cases, stating, “A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein a grievance is made about non-grant of permanent remission. During the last three weeks, this is the 6th or 7th case which we have come across where blatantly false statements have been made in the pleadings.”

The Court in its order dated September 10, expressed strong disapproval of the falsehoods presented by the advocate representing the petitioners. It said that the advocate had made incorrect statements not only in the petitions but also before the jail authorities and the Court. In an email addressed to the jail authorities, the advocate falsely stated that petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 had completed 14 years of imprisonment, which was proven to be incorrect.

"On a miscellaneous hearing day, there are 60 to 80 cases on the cause list of every Bench. It is not possible for the Judges to go through each and every page of each and every case listed before the Court, though we make an endeavour to go through every case very meticulously. Our system works on faith. We trust the members of the Bar when we hear cases. But, when we come across cases like this, our faith is shaken. Thus, there are not only false statements made in the Writ Petition, but a false statement was made before this Court which is recorded in our order dated 19th July, 2024. The false statements were repeated in the e-mail dated 15th July, 2024 addressed by the then Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners to the Jail Authorities," the Bench observed.

In the first case, four petitioners sought remission on the grounds that they had completed 14 years of imprisonment, a key requirement for consideration under the applicable remission policy. However, upon examining the facts, the Court found that only two of the petitioners, identified as petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3, had actually served 14 years in prison. The Court dismissed the remission pleas of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4, as they had not completed the required 14-year sentence.

Taking into account that petitioner No. 3 had indeed served the requisite time, the Court directed the State Government to consider his premature release in accordance with the applicable remission policy. The Court noted that petitioner No. 1 had already been considered for remission.

In the second petition, five petitioners claimed they had all completed over 14 years of imprisonment. However, the Court discovered that two petitioners had not served the required 14 years. Petitioner No. 4 had served only 13 years and 7 months, while petitioner No. 3 was found to have made completely false statements about the duration of his sentence.

Taking note of the fact that petitioner No. 4 was close to completing 14 years, the Court showed leniency and took the State Government's submission into consideration. The government submitted that petitioner No. 3 had since completed his 14-year term and was being considered for remission along with petitioners No. 1, 2, and 5. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

The Court also criticized the growing tendency among petitioners to obscure or downplay the nature of their offences when filing remission petitions. In both cases, the Court found that the petitioners had been convicted for various offences across different cases, but the offences were stated in a manner that gave the misleading impression that all petitioners were convicted for the same crime.

"In a petition seeking a writ of mandamus for premature release, the nature of offence is a very important consideration," the Court emphasized.

While the Court found this to be a "fit case" for imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners for their lawyer’s conduct, it refrained from penalizing them, stating that the petitioners should not suffer for the mistakes of their Advocate. "This is a fit case where exemplary costs should be awarded. However, we cannot penalise the petitioners for the mistakes committed by their lawyers," the Bench remarked.

Cause Title: Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) [WP (Crl) No. 296/2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra

Respondent: ASG Suryaprakash V. Raju, ASG Archana Pathak Dave, Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria (AOR), Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Meera Patel, Sachin Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Abhay S.OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Sukriti Mishra