Here is the list of ethics for High Judiciary (this is what judges of High Court and Supreme Court call themselves)
And the revised In-House Procedure, for taking suitable remedial action against judges who, by their acts of omission or commission, do not follow universally accepted values of Judicial Life including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.
In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has saddled the person with heavy exemplary costs, who lied through the teeth in the writ petition. Actually, Costs of Rs.50,00,000/- was brought down to Rs.5,00,000/-
From Para 4,
Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, even if not complete in its form, was maintainable and the same could not have been dismissed by the Court as the prayer by the appellant in that writ petition for habeas corpus was maintainable in view of the right to life and liberty of the petitioners stated therein, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was violated. The petition had been filed by the appellant as next friend and had not seen the alleged detenues since 4th January, 2007 when they were last seen in Amethi. According to the appellant the representations made to various authorities had failed to yield any results. Thus, that petition was not liable to be dismissed.
Abuse of the process of Court :Unclean Hands
This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(vii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to
take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it.
Citations: [(2013) 2 SCC 398], [AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 699], [MANU/SC/0892/2012], [JT (2012) 10 SC 393]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172073149/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1be4b0149711415a1b
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
A clear attempt to link circumstances to a pre-judged conclusion by Hon’ble CJ of India himself. At best, this is just an attempt to let go off one of the many grounds husband’s can take in their Discharge and Quash petitions, going against such landmark precedents.
If this assumption is allowed to continue, ablanaris will claim, her hubby dear comes in her dreams and molests, threatens, harasses, violates her & thereby it is a continuing offence as per Black&White Dictionary and attracts 179 CrPC squarely, and consequently your’s truly will wag their tails (heads may be) to it too.
One Gem from this Judgment:
Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony.
Alright. Little bit of difficulty in travel involved. We will use 20 other grounds, Mr. CJI. We also have clubbing of cases judgment and many more judgments on our side.
Frankly speaking, one has to see the caveat laid by Supreme Court in this judgment. Only when the Prosecution can establish that there was threat to the life and/or limb of the knife due to which the false case if institute out side the Jurisdiction, where the alleged offence has happened as mentioned in the Complaint, this judgment can be gainfully invoked.
The Key element is this “compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents“. As long as the Prosecution documents do not prima facie exhibit the above criteria, the ground of Territorial Jurisdiction is still a valid ground to see Discharge or Quash from a false case.
Go here.
My Note:
This is a bad judgment because, we all know the complainant may invoke Zero FIR at her place of residence/parental/shelter home which may be transferred to the location where there is actual territorial jurisdiction to the alleged offence. Or the parents or relative or any good Samaritan can file a report under sec 154(1) to a nearby police station, and again that PS has to register a Zero FIR. Moreover, the complaint’s case is fought by the State via Public Prosecutor and the Chief examination is done via affidavit these days and even that may be one of the instances when the complaint has to appear before Court. Due to technological advances which are expedited by COVID-19 pandemic, even the oath taken at such instance can be made via Video conference. Even the Cross can be conducted via Video conference.
Then what was the need to muddle the sacred principle of territorial jurisdiction enshrined under CHAPTER XIII provisions of Cr.P.C.?
Citations: [2019 SCC 5 384], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 493], [2019 AIR SC 1790], [2019 KLJ 2 601]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78252061/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/rupali-devi-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh/11C400
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cb00bc54a9326247ab05a22
Without residing in a shared household, the cunning ‘knife’ tried to grab Residence order. But Hon’ble Supreme Court caught hold of the fraud attempts and nullified them.
From Paras 17 and 18,
17. The facts of the present case are that the respondent has never stayed with the appellant in the premises in which she has been directed to be inducted. This is an admitted position even in answer to a court query by the respondent during the course of hearing. The “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act refers to two persons who have lived together in a “shared household”. A “shared household” has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. In order for the respondent to succeed, it was necessary that the two parties had lived in a domestic relationship in the household. However, the parties have never lived together in the property in question. It is not as if the respondent has been subsequently excluded from the enjoyment of the property or thrown out by the appellant in an alleged relationship which goes back 20 years. They fell apart even as per the respondent more than 7 years ago. We may also note that till 22-2-2010 even the wife of the appellant was alive. We may note for the purpose of record that as per the appellant, he is a Christian and thus there could be no question of visiting any temple and marrying the respondent by applying “kum kum”, and that too when the wife of the appellant was alive.
18. We are thus unequivocally of the view that the nature of the ex parte order passed on 19-9-2016 permitting the respondent to occupy the premises of the appellant cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and consequently Civil Appeal No. 2500 of 2017 is liable to be allowed.
Citation: [(2017) 8 SCC 550]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30306259/
The index page is here.
Landmark judgment from Apex Court setting record straight regarding the Shared Household. This is overruled in SC Ahuja case law here.
Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594165/
Citations: (2007) 3 SCC 169, 2007(2)ALD66(SC); 2007(1)AWC664(SC); 2007(3)CTC219; 136(2007)DLT1(SC); I(2007)DMC1SC; (2007)146PLR425; RLW2007(2)SC1546; 2006(13)SCALE652; 2007(1)LC0007(SC); 2007AIRSCW1088; AIR2007SC1118; (2007)2SCC(Cri)56; 2007(2)CivilLJ215(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)92
The index page is here.
This is reportable judgment from Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, regarding applicability of Amendment Act of Hindu Succession Act to the woman claiming share in the family property.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari at Supreme Court, held that,
From Para 4,
This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.
From Para 14,
According to Dr. Arun Mohan, twenty minutes spent at that time would have saved several years in court proceedings.
From Para 21,
The learned Single Judge observed that the present appellants belong to that category of litigants whose only motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let the trial conclude. Applications after applications are being filed by the appellants at every stage, even though orders of the trial court are based on sound reasoning. Moreover, the appellants have tried to mislead the court also by filing wrong synopsis and incorrect dates of events.
From Para 22,
Those litigants or their advocates who mislead the courts by filing wrong and incorrect particulars (the list of dates and events) must be dealt with heavy hands.
From Para 26,
It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants also moved transfer application apprehending adverse order from the trial judge, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. This conduct of the appellants demonstratesthat they are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed with the suit. They are creating all kinds of hurdles andobstacles at every stage of the proceedings.
From Para 30,
It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that the appellants have seriously created obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually prevented the court from proceeding with the suit. This is a typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts. Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the matter.
From Para 34,
According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because our courts do notimpose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in our courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied.
From Para 44,
In the instant case when the entire question of title has been determined by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition against that judgment has been dismissed by this court, thereafter the trial court ought not to have framed such an issue on a point which has been finally determined upto this Court. In any case, the same was exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata. That clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind.
From Para 48,
48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts.
From Para 56,
These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.
Hon’ble Apex Court held that,
The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice ha been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as on affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records.
Citation: (1998) 2 SCC 493
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1743953/
My Favorite Mr Justice Dalveer Bhandari of Supreme Court of India delivered this judgment. He elaborately destroyed the false pleadings and false pleas made by the Appellate solely for the purpose of dragging on the case. Observe how he cites all his past landmark, reported judgments in this one and sets the stage to expose the appellate thoroughly.
From Para 21,
This case demonstrates widely prevalent state of affairs where litigants raise disputes and cause litigation and then obstruct the progress of the case only because they stand to gain by doing so. It is a matter of common experience that the Court’s otherwise scarce resources are spent in dealing with non-deserving cases and unfortunately those who were waiting in the queue for justice in genuine cases usually suffer. This case is a typical example of delayed administration of civil justice in our Courts. A small suit, where the appellant was directed to be evicted from the premises in 1994, took 17 years before the matter was decided by the High Court. Unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to file frivolous cases to take undue advantage of the judicial system.
From Para 35,
Experience also reveals that our Courts have been very reluctant to grant the actual or realistic costs. We would like to explain this by giving this illustration. When a litigant is compelled to spend Rs.1 lac on a frivolous litigation there is hardly any justification in awarding Rs. 1,000/- as costs unless there are special circumstances of that case.We need to decide cases while keeping pragmatic realities in view. We have to ensure that unscrupulous litigant is not permitted to derive any benefit by abusing the judicial process.
From Para 42,
On the facts of the present case, following principles emerge:
1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice.
2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts.
3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful.
4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong doer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.
5. It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained
by abusing the judicial process.
6. Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property
irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a watchman, caretaker or servant who was only allowed to live into the premises to look after the same.
7. The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property of the principal only on behalf the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.
8. The protection of the Court can be granted or extended to the person who has valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour.
This is a landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, to protect the folks who marry inter-caste or inter-religion and against the wishes of their parents, which could have led to honour killings or other forms of harassment and violence.
Citations : [2006 AIR SC 2522], [2006 SCR SUPP 3 350], [2006 SCC CRI 2 478], [2006 SCALE 6 583], [2006 SCC 5 475], [2006 SUPREME 5 266], [2006 CRLJ SC 3309], [2006 JT 6 173], [2006 ANJ SC 2 313], [2006 CRIMES SC 3 41], [2006 AIR SC 3499], [2006 KERLT 3 375], [2006 ALL LJ 5 357], [2006 AIR SCW 3499]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1364215/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae31e4b0149711413225
The index page is here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 267 access attempts in the last 7 days.
