NEW DELHI: In a stern message on Monday, the Supreme Court declared that lawyers found engaging in fraudulent practices will face severe consequences. The Court dismissed attempts by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to modify its earlier directive for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into a fake appeal filed before the Court.
A Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that fraud on the Court would not be tolerated, irrespective of the perpetrator’s profession or stature. “Lawyers are not exempt. If someone commits fraud on the Court, they will be punished,” the Bench stated emphatically.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court proposes makeshift courtroom in jail for Yasin Malik’s cross-examination
The investigation dates back to September 2020, when the Supreme Court ordered a CBI inquiry into allegations that a litigant, Bhagwan Singh, denied filing a special leave petition (SLP) and claimed he never engaged the lawyers listed in the case. The controversy arose after the Court issued a notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh based on the allegedly fraudulent SLP.
In response, the Supreme Court mandated strict compliance measures for advocates-on-record (AoRs). Lawyers must now ensure that only authorized advocates appear and argue cases on the assigned day. Any changes in representation must be promptly communicated to the concerned court master.
During Monday’s hearing, the CBI reported that a regular case had been registered on November 22 against ten individuals accused of exploiting court procedures. The SCBA and SCAORA had jointly sought modifications to the original order, arguing that it could adversely affect bar members’ rights. The Bench, however, rejected their plea, reaffirming the need for accountability.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court reinstates criminal proceedings against former Kerala minister Antony Raju
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Dave’s proposal for issuing a warning instead of punitive action was also dismissed. “No warnings. If any lawyer commits fraud on the Court, they will face punishment,” the Court asserted.
The Bench concluded that no further directions were required, as the CBI had already initiated appropriate action. With this, the matter was closed.