On Tuesday(10th Sept),The Supreme Court reprimanded advocates for presenting misleading facts in remission cases, stating it erodes trust in the judicial system. A bench led by Justices Oka and Masih dismissed a petition from nine undertrials, highlighting recurring false claims.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India expressed its displeasure on Tuesday(10th Sept), over the growing trend of advocates presenting misleading facts in remission cases. The bench stressed that the judicial system is built on trust, and falsehoods undermine this essential foundation.
A bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition filed by nine undertrial prisoners seeking remission of their sentences.
The court was quick to highlight discrepancies in the facts presented by the counsel for the petitioners, stating-
“This is the seventh case in recent weeks where misleading facts and false statements have been brought before the court in remission or furlough matters.”
Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra represented the petitioners and argued that the undertrials had completed the necessary 14 years of imprisonment, a pre-condition for remission. However, the court’s scrutiny of the case documents revealed several inconsistencies.
The bench noted-
“We have encountered false statements in every instance. You assert that all the accused have completed 14 years, yet the documents clearly indicate that only one has. Similarly, you claim all furlough requests were denied, but this is accurate for only one individual.”
This revelation led the court to sternly reprimand the advocate for presenting inaccurate facts. The bench reminded Malhotra that the responsibility of the counsel is to provide accurate and verified information, especially in sensitive matters like remission, where the liberty of individuals is at stake.
The court’s patience was visibly tested, and it issued a stern warning to the senior counsel.
“Please don’t force us to say more. You are a senior counsel—don’t press us further. We will impose exemplary costs, and the advocate will be held responsible for payment.”
– the bench stated emphatically.
The threat of exemplary costs serves as a strong deterrent to lawyers who might attempt to mislead the court in future cases. Such punitive measures are designed to uphold the integrity of the legal process and ensure that advocates are more diligent when submitting claims, especially in cases involving the remission of sentences.
In response to the court’s admonition, Malhotra quickly apologized for the confusion caused by the erroneous information. He clarified that he had been unaware of the full facts because a crucial custody certificate was missing.
He explained-
“I was unaware of the full facts as the custody certificate was missing.”
Despite his apology, the bench was not entirely pacified. Justice Oka further remarked-
“If you are part of a wrongful act, you should suffer the consequences. Even the third petitioner has not completed 14 years.”
This remark underscored the gravity of the situation, emphasizing that legal representatives must bear the consequences of misleading or inaccurate submissions, even if done unintentionally.
The bench further scrutinized the petition in detail and found significant inaccuracies in the representations made.
In its brief order, the court stated-
“The petition was based on the assumption that all four accused had served 14 years without remission. However, the State’s response shows that petitioners 2 and 4 have not completed 14 years. The petition’s first paragraph falsely states that all petitioners have served over 14 years, which is further misrepresented in an email from the Advocate on Record to jail authorities.”
This order clearly highlighted the discrepancies in the petition and demonstrated the bench’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. The court made it evident that incomplete or incorrect submissions would not be tolerated, especially when such submissions could potentially affect the outcome of significant legal decisions like the remission of sentences.
The Supreme Court also voiced concerns over the increasing number of petitions that are being filed with misleading information.
The bench observed-
“In the past three weeks, we’ve come across multiple pleas containing blatantly false statements. On miscellaneous days, there are over 60 cases, and while we make every effort, it is not practical for judges to meticulously review every page.”
This statement sheds light on the immense workload faced by the judiciary and the burden caused by inaccurate filings. The judicial process relies heavily on the integrity of the facts presented by advocates, and the rising trend of misleading information undermines the very trust upon which the system is built.
The bench further stated-
“Our judicial system operates on trust, and cases like this undermine that foundation. This is a clear example where imposing exemplary costs is warranted.”
The court’s message was unequivocal: misleading facts not only waste the court’s time but also damage the trust that the legal system operates on.