The court also issued specific instructions regarding Advocates on Record (AOR) and their responsibility for listing names on order sheets. The court clarified that AORs must list only those lawyers who will actually appear and argue in the case on that day. If any changes arise, the AOR must inform the court or notify the court during the hearing itself.
![[Breaking] 'Mystery Lawyer' Case: Supreme Court Orders CBI Inquiry, Seeks Status Report within Two Months](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-55.png?resize=290%2C174&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today (20th Sept): The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into all parties involved in the “mystery lawyer case”, seeks report to be submitted within two months.
The verdict is being delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
The Court expressed concern over blatant attempts to abuse and misuse the legal process, stating:
“Given the severity and seriousness of the case, where both the High Court and Supreme Court were manipulated, and the entire justice system was put at risk by respondent no. 3, Mr. Sukhpal, respondent no. 4, Ms. Rinki, along with their associates and lawyers, who aided in forging and fabricating documents submitted to the High Court and Supreme Court, as well as pursuing false proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge, consent, or authority, we find it appropriate to transfer the investigation to the CBI.”
The case revolves around a startling assertion by the litigant, who claimed that he never engaged any of the lawyers representing him in court to file the case.
On September 9, 2024, the court reserved its judgment after a session where the implicated lawyers attempted to apologize. However, the court refused to accept the apology, stressing that strong directives were needed to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future.
READ ALSO: Lawyers’ Union Says Advocates’ Letter to CJI Misleads Public
In this unusual case, the court noted that the judicial system had been misled, with the participation of several advocates, including Sukhpal, Rinki, and others, who were found to have engaged in deceptive conduct. The court identified the creation and submission of false documents on behalf of someone who was unaware of these actions as a form of fraud before the court.
The Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal case against Ajay Katara. Rinki filed an application to recall this order, but it was dismissed. Following this dismissal, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court under Bhagwan Singh’s name.
Over a month after the Supreme Court issued a notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the SLP, Bhagwan Singh wrote to the Supreme Court Registry, asserting that he had not filed any such petition. He clarified that he had not authorized any advocate to submit the SLP, nor had he signed a vakalatnama or affidavit, claiming that someone had filed the petition without his knowledge as part of a conspiracy, and called for strict action against the responsible parties.
On July 30, Bhagwan Singh appeared in Court with his actual lawyer to confirm the contents of his letter. On the same day, Advocate-on-Record Anubhav, through whom the SLP was filed, stated that he had received Bhagwan Singh’s signed vakalatnama from Advocate RPS Yadav but had not witnessed Bhagwan Singh sign it.
Advocate RPS Yadav claimed that he obtained the case documents from Advocate Karan Singh, who practices at the Allahabad High Court. Rinki and Sukhpal informed the Court that Bhagwan Singh had personally given them the vakalatnama for filing the SLP, a claim Bhagwan Singh disputed, stating he had not seen his daughter or her husband in over three years.
The Court was further informed that the SLP was notarized without Bhagwan Singh’s presence. The notary officer was ordered to appear in person.
On August 28, Notary Officer AN Singh admitted his mistake, stating that he had attested Bhagwan Singh’s affidavit based on Advocate RPS Yadav’s identification of the signature. The Court directed the notary to submit an affidavit explaining the process of notarizing documents and why Bhagwan Singh’s affidavit was attested in his absence.
After reserving judgment on September 9, the Court rejected apologies from the involved advocates, refusing to adopt a lenient approach.
The court’s orders underlined that such actions would be punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as they amounted to defrauding the judicial system. The bench further expressed concern over the fact that officers of the court—advocates—engaged in litigation with ulterior motives, which is particularly worrisome in a system built on trust and professionalism.
The Court expressed concern over acts of fraud, noting:
“These are not only fraudulent acts committed against the individuals being falsely implicated or on whose behalf false proceedings are initiated without their knowledge and consent, but they are also frauds committed on the Courts themselves. No Court can allow itself to be used as a tool for fraud, nor can it ignore that it is being so misused,” the Court observed.
The court also issued specific instructions regarding Advocates on Record (AOR) and their responsibility for listing names on order sheets. The court clarified that AORs must list only those lawyers who will actually appear and argue in the case on that day. If any changes arise, the AOR must inform the court or notify the court during the hearing itself.
In its judgment today, the Court emphasized that every advocate who signs vakalatnamas and other legal documents, and who represents a party in Court, is presumed to act with responsibility and seriousness.
“The issue takes on greater seriousness when advocates, as officers of the Court, actively participate in malicious litigation schemes by unscrupulous litigants, assisting them in misusing the legal system for ulterior motives. No professional, especially legal professionals, are exempt from prosecution for their criminal actions,”
the judgment declared.
