The Supreme Court has clarified that an advocate who only attests or identifies a deponent in an affidavit is not responsible for its truthfulness. The Court slammed the Bar Council for malicious proceedings and imposed Rs 50,000 costs each on the complainant and BCMG.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has given a very clear ruling that an advocate who only attests or identifies a person in an affidavit cannot be held responsible for whether the statements written in that affidavit are true or false.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that such an act does not make the advocate a party to the affidavit or its contents.
This important judgment came while the Court was dismissing a Special Leave Petition that had been filed by a litigant along with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG).
The Court also described the disciplinary proceedings against the advocate as
“manifestly a case of malicious prosecution… at the behest of the opponent litigant”
and further ordered both the complainant and the BCMG to pay a cost of Rs 50,000 each.
The case had its background in a long-running dispute. The complaint was filed before the BCMG by one Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad against Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. Bhakad, who was a former lecturer, had a conflict with his ex-employer, Ismail Yusuf Junior College.
In a case filed by Bhakad, the college had made an application to amend its written statement.
The application was supported with an affidavit, and Advocate Shastri had only identified the person (the deponent) who signed that affidavit.
Bhakad alleged that by identifying the deponent, Advocate Shastri had in effect confirmed the correctness of the affidavit and the application “as being of her personal knowledge.”
He further argued that since the affidavit’s statements were later found false, the advocate, by signing for identification, had given support to false claims and was equally guilty of offences like forgery, perjury, and cheating.
Based on this allegation, the BCMG registered the complaint and even referred it to its Disciplinary Committee for inquiry. Advocate Shastri challenged this action in the Bombay High Court, which quashed the proceedings. But both the complainant and the BCMG moved the Supreme Court against that order.
The Supreme Court, while deciding the matter, stood firmly with the Bombay High Court’s findings. The judges said that the allegations were “wholly absurd and untenable.”
The Court held that the role of the advocate was only limited to identification and did not extend to certifying the contents of the affidavit.
The bench made its position very clear by observing:
“An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to the contents of the affidavit.”
The Court also said that the complaint was not only baseless but was filed with malicious intent. It noted that the complaint was
“founded on malicious and spiteful insinuations directed against the advocate who merely identified the opposite party in an affidavit.”
The Court came down heavily on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa as well, stating that its decision to register the complaint and forward it to the inquiry committee was
“illegal on the face of the record, bordering on perversity.”
Finally, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court’s order and dismissed both the Special Leave Petitions, declaring them to be without merit.
The Court observed that both the complainant and the BCMG had caused “immeasurable grief and harassment” to Advocate Shastri.
The bench then ordered costs against them, stating that both Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa must pay ₹50,000 each to Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri.
Click Here To Read More Reports on TGPSC
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
