Apex Court Orders Probe, Warns of FIR in Shocking Judicial Fraud
New Delhi, May 14 – In a rare and serious development, the Supreme Court has revoked its order in a land dispute case after discovering it was based on a fraudulent compromise involving an impersonator posing as a respondent.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi has directed the Supreme Court registry to conduct an internal inquiry and submit a report within three weeks. The court has also warned that a First Information Report (FIR) may be lodged to ensure those responsible for the deceit are brought to justice.
Ghost Respondent, Forged Lawyers, and a Fake Settlement
The case was scrutinized after Harish Jaiswal, the real respondent from Muzaffarpur, Bihar, discovered that a Supreme Court order dated December 13, 2024, had been passed in his name, without his knowledge or consent. The order had quashed earlier decisions by the Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court, citing a supposed compromise between Jaiswal and petitioner Bipin Bihari Sinha.However, Jaiswal was never informed about the proceedings. He only learned about the Supreme Court ruling when his son-in-law spotted it on the court’s website five months later. He then approached the court through his lawyer, Gyanant Singh, asserting that the order had been obtained through fraud, deception, and suppression of material facts.
Legal Representation Denied and Misused
In a startling revelation, four advocates were recorded as having appeared for the fake respondent in the original order. But during the recent hearing, one of the lawyers claimed he had not been active in the legal field for some time due to his advanced age of 80 and denied any participation in the case.Adding to the deception, a caveat was filed in the respondent's name, effectively blocking any notice from being issued, which would have alerted Jaiswal about the legal proceedings.
Jaiswal’s plea emphasized, “The petitioner has not only acted in violation of legal and ethical norms but has also committed a fraud upon this court, which, if not rectified, will embolden such mala fide litigants to continue their deceitful practices.”
A Deep Fraud on the Judiciary
Jaiswal alleged that he had never settled with the petitioner and had not authorized anyone to represent him. His plea accused Sinha of fabricating the agreement and colluding with unnamed individuals to manipulate the proceedings, ensuring that the real respondent remained unaware.The fraudulent act led the Supreme Court to believe the matter had been amicably resolved, prompting it to allow the special leave petition and override the 2016 Patna High Court judgment.
“This court cannot be taken for a ride,” stated the bench, expressing concern over the severity of the judicial fraud and its broader implications on the legal system.
Next Steps
As the inquiry progresses, the Supreme Court has clarified that accountability is paramount. If the investigation confirms the fraudulent activities, criminal proceedings may follow, including registering an FIR.The case highlights critical vulnerabilities in legal proceedings and underscores the importance of vigilant judicial oversight to uphold the sanctity of the justice system.
