On Tuesday, the Rajasthan High Court urged for a thorough investigation into what seems to be a notable instance of signature forgery. Justice Dinesh Mehta, overseeing the matter, raised substantial doubts regarding the legitimacy of signatures from 101 litigants on a solitary vakalatnama, a legal document granting representation in court.
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday has called for an in-depth investigation into what appears to be a significant case of signature forgery. Justice Dinesh Mehta, presiding over the case, expressed serious concerns over the authenticity of signatures from a staggering 101 litigants on a single vakalatnama, a legal document authorizing representation in court.
This judicial inquiry stems from a peculiar observation where litigants from disparate parts of the country were supposedly unified in one location to sign a singular document. Justice Mehta articulated his astonishment and skepticism, stating,
“How these 101 persons scattered in different parts of the State/Country have converged in the office of learned counsel for the petitioners and have signed on a printout of one list and authorized petitioner No.1 to file and swear affidavit, is a question to be probed.”
Adding to the court’s suspicion was the apparent uniformity in the signatures presented. Justice Mehta noted,
“A cursory look at the Vakalatnama filed with the writ petition shows that most of the signatures have been inscribed in seemingly similar handwriting, with the same pen and hand.”
This discovery led to an immediate red flag regarding the legitimacy of the litigants’ consent and representation.
The matter took a more dramatic turn when the petitioners’ lawyer, Advocate Surendra Singh Choudhary, attempted to withdraw the petition post the revelation of potential forgery. The court, however, denied this request, choosing instead to delve deeper into what Justice Mehta described as an increasingly common but disturbing practice, saying,
“This practice has become the new normal where joint petitions are being filed with one Vakalatnama while appending the forged signatures of petitioners.”
The joint writ petition in question involved retired government employees from Rajasthan embroiled in a service dispute, raising additional questions regarding the logistics and feasibility of such a collective action given the geographical spread of the alleged litigants. The court highlighted anomalies within the petition itself, questioning,
“The memo of petition does not contain any particular as to which petitioner had served which department and when he retired.”
In response to these irregularities, Justice Mehta mandated a structured inquiry led by the Court’s Registrar (Judicial). The directive includes summoning all 101 petitioners to verify whether the signatures on the vakalatnama were genuinely theirs. Scheduled for April 15, this session aims to cross-examine the identities of the alleged litigants and ensure the authenticity of their consent to legal representation.
Additionally, the Registrar has been tasked with compiling a fresh set of signatures from the petitioners, to be executed without prior exposure to the contentious vakalatnama. This step is crucial for a transparent comparison and subsequent analysis, aimed at unraveling the truth behind the signatures.
This unfolding saga in the Rajasthan High Court not only puts a spotlight on the integrity of legal documentation but also serves as a cautionary tale for the legal fraternity. The case, set for further hearing on April 23, is expected to offer clarity on the depth of the forgery issue and set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, reinforcing the judiciary’s stance against malpractice and the manipulation of legal procedures.
