SC annoyed over false statements by advocates to secure remission, says 'our faith is shaken'

New Delhi: Expressing displeasure over the lawyers repeatedly making false statements before the court as well as in the petitions to secure premature release of the convicts, the Supreme Court has said when it comes across cases like this, “our faith is shaken”.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih in its recent order recorded its anguish and said that it has come across several cases in the last three weeks where false statements have been made in the pleading.

“A large number of petitions are being filed in this court wherein a grievance is made about non grant of permanent remission. During the last three weeks, this is the 6th or 7th case which we have come across where blatantly false statements have been made in the pleadings,” the bench said in its September 10 order uploaded recently.

It pointed out that on a miscellaneous cases hearing day in the apex court, there are 60 to 80 matters listed before every bench and it is not possible for the judges to go through each and every page of each and every case listed before the court, though an endeavour to go through every case very meticulously.

“Our system works on faith. We trust the members of the Bar when we hear cases. But when we come across cases like this, our faith is shaken,” the bench said.

While dealing with one of such cases, it added there are not only false statements made in the writ petition filed for seeking remission, but a false statement was made before this court which is recorded in the order dated July 19, 2024.

It said the false statements were repeated in the email dated July 15, 2024 addressed by the then advocate-on-record for the petitioners to the jail authorities.

“Though he was aware of this factual position, a false statement was made on July 19, 2024 that the period of furlough of all the petitioners (convicts) has not expired,” it said.

The anguished bench said, “This is a fit case where exemplary costs should be awarded. However, we cannot penalise the petitioners for the mistakes committed by their lawyers.” It recorded that in one of the cases before it, the writ petition proceeded on the footing that all the four petitioners have undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission.

It noted the Delhi government in its affidavit has pointed out that two out of four prisoners have not completed the requisite 14 years of imprisonment for availing remission.

“Thus, a false statement was made in the writ petition that all the four petitioners have undergone actual 14 years of imprisonment. The petitioners have been convicted for different offences in different cases as can be seen from the nominal roll,” the bench said.

The bench directed the Delhi government to consider the case of one of the four petitioners for remission, who has served 14-years in jail as per the applicable policy and refused to grant relief to two others, as they have not completed the requisite 14 years in jail. With regard to the fourth convict, whose case was considered for remission by the state government but denied, the bench said he will have to challenge the decision before the high court.

The bench dismissed the petition by the four convicts for remission with these directions.

Similarly, the bench in another case related to remission found that wrong statements have been made with regard to offences in which the five accused have been convicted.

It was stated in their petition that the five convicts have been found guilty for murder charge but the court found that two of them were convicted for other offences also.

One was convicted under the Arms Act and another was also convicted for the offence of kidnapping for ransom and destruction of evidence.

“In a petition seeking a writ of mandamus for premature release, the nature of offence is a very important consideration,” the bench said and directed the Delhi government to look into their cases for remission and pass order accordingly.