The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has named 8 lawyers as accused in its first information report (FIR) lodged pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in connection with a fake vakalatnama case. A drama of the most unusual kind unfolded in July after a litigant in a case said that he did not know any of the lawyers who claimed to represent him before the top court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has taken significant action following a Supreme Court directive by naming eight lawyers as accused in a First Information Report (FIR) related to a fake vakalatnama case. This development is part of an inquiry into a serious matter involving allegations of false personation, submission of false claims in court, forgery, and cheating, among other criminal offences.
The Supreme Court’s directive came after a startling revelation in a judgment delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. The case involved a litigant who denied filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court and claimed he had never hired the lawyers who purportedly represented him.
The judgment emphasized the gravity of such fraudulent practices and underlined the court’s resolve to deal with them sternly. The Bench noted that
“lawyers engaging in such fraudulent practices will face strict action,”
signaling a zero-tolerance approach toward unethical conduct in the legal profession.
The matter unraveled when the petitioner, Bhagwan Singh, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court Registry over a month after the apex court had issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh in connection with the SLP.
In his letter, Bhagwan Singh asserted,
“I have not filed any such case,”
thereby denying any involvement in the legal proceedings initiated in his name.
This revelation led the Supreme Court to issue stringent directives to advocates-on-record (AoRs). The Court mandated that AoRs must ensure they mark the appearance of only those lawyers who are explicitly authorized to argue a case on a given day.
It further clarified that if there is any change in the arguing advocate,
“it shall be the duty of the concerned AoR to inform the concerned court master in advance or at the time of the hearing.”
Following a preliminary inquiry by the CBI, the central agency recorded that it appeared Bhagwan Singh had no interactions with the lawyers who claimed to represent him. The FIR names a total of ten accused, including eight lawyers, who allegedly conspired to file the fraudulent SLP before the Supreme Court.
Additionally, these individuals are accused of filing miscellaneous applications before the Allahabad High Court under similarly dubious circumstances.
The FIR outlines that the accused lawyers and others involved may have acted as part of a “criminal conspiracy” to exploit the legal system for personal gain.
The Supreme Court’s firm stance against such misconduct reflects its broader commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. By initiating a CBI probe and implementing stricter guidelines for AoRs, the apex court aims to safeguard litigants and uphold the sanctity of the legal profession.
This case serves as a stark reminder that unethical practices within the legal fraternity will not go unnoticed.
The judiciary has made it clear that anyone found guilty of such offenses will face stringent consequences, setting a precedent for accountability and adherence to ethical standards.
CASE TITLE:
Bhagwan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Fake Vakalatnama Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
