Summary: Advocate gone crazy makes patently false statement about age of Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court initiates suo motu perjury proceedings against the advocate gone crazy. The judgment is mainly useful to understand some of the important sections of IPC used to initiate a complaint under perjury.
The full judgment text is given later. Important excerpts are given below about Sec 191 and 193 of IPC:
We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affricative of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.
19. With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this
Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a
complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.
FULL JUDGMENT TEXT BELOW:
AIR2001SC2204, 2001(2)CGLJ499, 2001CriLJ2611, 2001-3-LW61, 2001
(2)OLR188, 2001(3)PLJR41, 2001(4)SCALE199, (2001)5SCC289, [2001]3SCR750, 2001(2)
UC163
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 12.05.2001
Appellants :Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate
Read my book on how to save on maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
K.T . Thomas, R.P. Sethi and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R. Karuppan, Petitioner in person
Subject: Constitution
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 191, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 193,
Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 406, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 429,
Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 471; Constitution of India – Article 217
Case Note:
Constitution – perjury – Article 217 of Constitution of India and Sections 191 and 193
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – suo moto proceedings against advocate for filing writ
petition with false affidavit – writ petition filed for issuance of writ of qua warranto
against Chief Justice of India (CJI) and to direct President to determine age of CJI
under Article 217 – writ petitioner aware that age of CJI determined long back –
affidavit filed with writ petition false – petitioner guilty of perjury – Court directed to
file complaint under Section 193 before Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.
1. Proclaiming to be its President, the respondent Sh.R. Karuppan filed a Writ Petition in the
name of Madras High Court Advocates Association praying for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto
against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. He also prayed this Court to determine the age of the
first respondent in the writ petition as 1.11.1934 and further that the first respondent had
attained the age of superannuation on 31st October, 1999 and had ceased to hold the office
since then. In support of the averments made in the writ petition Shri R. Karuppan (hereinafter
referred to as “the respondent”) also filed an affidavit.
2. Before the matter was taken up for admission, the Registry of this Court received a petition
signed by a number of advocates claiming to be the members of the said Association and
alleging that the Association had not authorised the respondent to file any writ petition in the
name of the Association. Ignoring the disputes stated to be existing amongst the members of
the Advocates Association, we proceeded to consider the writ petition on the assumption that
the petition was either filed on behalf of the Association or by the respondent on his own in his
individual capacity as well, particularly when the prayer made was for the issuance of a writ of
quo warranto. In the said petition, the respondent has raised the question of the alleged
disputed age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
3. The writ petition was dismissed in limine observing :
“Now Mr. Karuppan made averments in the present writ petition that ‘the petitioner
submits that undetermined by the President and the operation of Article 217 is still
operative and within the jurisdiction of the President.’ He further averred that ‘the
petitioner submits that the conduct of the President of India, ever since the
controversy arose till date only proves that the dispute has never been determined
by him or his predecessor’. He further averred that the press note released by the
Government of India to the Press Information Bureau on 23rd October, 2000,
reached the notice of the petitioner only after 23.11.2000. In the context of this
statement he concealed the fact that copy of the said press note was included in the
files of the contempt proceedings initiated against S.K. Sundaram as early as
7.11.2000. Mr. Karuppan admitted before us that he himself appeared in this Court
as Advocate for S.K. Sundaram on 20.11.2000.”
4. Notice was issued to the respondent requiring him to show cause why prosecution
proceedings shall not be initiated against him for offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. During the pendency of these proceedings 600 and odd persons, claiming to be the members
of the Advocates Association submitted in writing that the Association had not passed any
Resolution regarding the age of the CJI and that Mr. Karuppan was not authorised to file any
case representing the Association. As the notice was issued against the respondent in his
individual capacity, we granted him time to file reply to the notice, if he so desired. In reply, the
respondent has reiterated the submissions made earlier in the writ petition filed by him. It is
submitted that he believed bonafide that the President of India had not determined the age of
the Chief Justice of India and even if any determination has been made under Article 217 of the
Constitution, the same is not conclusive for all times. It is contended that the respondent came
to know of the Press Information Bureau release, informing that the age of the Chief Justice of
India stood determined by the present of India as early as on 16.5.1991 only in December,
2000. The respondent has submitted that he is not guilty of offence of perjury.
6. We have heard the respondent who has appeared in person and examined the whole record.
7. Proved or admitted facts of the case are that one S.K. Sundaram, Advocate sent a
telegraphic communication to Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on
3.11.2000 which read as under:
“I call upon Shriman Dr. A.S. anand Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to step down
from the Constitutional Office of Chief Justice of India forthwith, failing which I will
be constrained to move the criminal court for offences under Sections 429, 406,
471 Indian Penal Code for falsification of your age, without prej udice to the right to
file a writ of quo-warranto against you and for a direction to deposit a sum of Rs.3
crores for usurping to the office of Chief Justice of India even after attaining the age
of superannuation.”
8. The said S.K. Sundaram also filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chennai against the CJI. On a note put up by the Registrar General regarding the said
telegraphic communication, this Court vide order dated 7.11.2000 found that prima facie the
said S.K. Sundaram was guilty of contempt of court. A notice was issued to him in reply to
which he filed his objections. He was represented by the respondent herein. During the
pendency of the contempt proceedings this Court was informed that the President of India, in
consultation with the Chief Justice of India, decided the question relating to the age of Dr.
Justice A.S. Anand as early as on 16.5.1991 holding that the date of birth of Dr. Anand was
1.11.1936. The Court was further informed that for arriving at the conclusion of Dr. Justice
Anand’s age being 1.11.1936, the President has considered the following documents:
“(1) The certificate of matriculate examination dated 1.9.1951 issued by the
University of J & K in respect of Adarsh Sein Anand (the present CJI) which showed
explicitly that his date of birth was 1.11.1936. (2) The passport issued to Adarsh
Sein Anand (the present CJI) on 3.8.1960, also explicitly showed that his date of
birth was 1.11.1936. (3) The report prepared by the then CJI in respect of the age
of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, who was then a Judge of the High Court.”
9. The President’s Secretariat issued an order way back on 16.5.1991 which read as under:
“The petition from Shri S.K. Sundaram, advocate, Madras, to the President on
behalf of his client Shrimati Kasturi Radhakrishnana, Chairperson, Madras Citizens
Progressive Council, Madras and the records have been perused and the matter
considered by the President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The
President has come the conclusion that the petitions of Shri S.K. Sundaram,
Advocate, Madras, in respect of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand of the Madras
High Court, be rejected and that no inquiry as stipulated under Article 217(3) of the
Constitution need be undertaken.”
10. While disposing of the contempt petition this Court held :
“We have absolutely no doubt that when the President of India resolved the
question of age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand in 1991 when he was the Judge of the
High Court, that too pursuant to the contemnor himself raking up the question then,
the should have, as a dutiful citizen of India, realised that the said decision attained
finality so far as the question of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand is concerned.
Such decision was based on very weighty and formidable materials available to the
President of India then.”
11. The Court found that the contemnor was guilty of gross criminal contempt of court and
accordingly convicted him. He was sentence to undergo imprisonment for six months, the
operation of which was suspended for a period of one month which was later extended upon
furnishing of an undertaking by the contemnor. All along during the contempt proceedings, the
respondent herein was present in the Court and fully knew that the age of Dr. Justice A.S.
Anand had been determined by the President of India on 16.5.1991 in exercise of his powers
under Article 217 of the Constitution.
12. Despite the knowledge of the determination of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. anand by the
President of India and the finding of this Court, the respondent herein and the finding of this
Court, the respondent herein filed the present writ petition accompanied by his personal
affidavit wherein he stated :
“The petitioner submits that after the passing of the above said resolution, it came
to its notice that on October 23, 2000 the Government of India had released a press
note to the Press Information Bureau. Therein it had been stated that on 16.5.1991
the President had determined the age of the 1st respondent and that Sundaram’s
attempt to reopen the said issue in 1991 was rejected. Significantly this press
report was not published in the dailies in Tamil Nadu. This renders the statement
dubious and no credence could be attached to this communication.”
13. He further submitted :
“The petitioner submits that the dispute which had arisen as early as in 1991,
undetermined by the President and the operation of Article 217 is still operative and
within the jurisdiction of the President.”
14. The respondent submitted before us that the averments made by him in his writ petition
were correct and that he was not guilty of perjury. Alternatively he submitted that he had no
knowledge of the passing of the order by the President of India in 1991, prior to 2nd December,
2000.
15. Court are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival
claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences
committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and
impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system
would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to
mislead the court by filing and relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the
adjudication of which is depended upon the statement of facts. if the result of the proceedings
are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in
accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be
sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence
inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent.
Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.
16. At common law courts took action against a person who was shown to have made a
statement, material in the proceedings, which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true.
The offence committed by him is known as perjury. Dealing with the history of the offence,
Stanford H. Kadish in “Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice” (Vol. 3) observed :
“History of the offence
Before witnesses had any formal role in trials, there was no need for a perjury law.
In the Middle Ages, when the English common law was developing, trial by battle
was used to test a sworn accusation. Similarly, for the sworn denial of a serious
charge based on mere suspicion, an ordeal administered by a priest was the
predominant mode of trial until it was abolished in 1215 as superstitious. Finally, at
least until the Assize of Clarendon (1166), less serious accusations could be
successfully answered by “compurgation”, that is, by obtained a sufficient number
of “oath helpers” to support the defendant’s credibility.
Trials in the modern sense began to develop only in the thirteenth century. Little is
reliably known about the conduct of jury trials prior to the sixteenth century, but in
civil cases, it seems that genuine witnesses were permitted to give their accounts,
although they could not be compelled to appear. In early criminal cases, the jury
seems always to have included some who, aware of the commission of a crime in
their community, brought the suspect before a judge. Those witnesses who did
attend jury and retired with them to deliberate, often to make their disclosures in
secret. It was the verdict, not the testimony, that was perceived as either true or
false; the only remedy for falsehood remotely akin to a perjury prosecution was a
seldom-invoked procedure called “the writ of attaint,” created in 1202 and not
abolished formally until 1825. Though attaint, the jury would be punished for a
‘false’ verdict and the verdict itself overturned.
Witness first testified under oath in criminal cases on behalf of the Crown in the
sixteenth century. No witnesses for the defense were permitted until the mid-
seventeenth century, since they would have been witnesses against the Crown, and
not until 1702 were defense witnesses permitted to be sworn (1 Anne, St. 2, c.9,
s.3 (1701) (England) (repealed)). By the late seventeenth century the jury had lost
all its testimonial functions, and witnesses thus became the sole means of bringing
facts to the judge’s and jury’s attention.
Since the early common law had no established mechanism for dealing with false
swearing by witnesses, the Court of Start Chamber assumed for itself the power to
punish perjury. This authority was confirmed by statute in 1487 (Star Chamber Act,
3 Hen. 5, c. 1 (1487) (England) (repealed)). The first detailed statute against false
swearing was enacted in 1562 (5 Eliz. 1, c.9 (1562) (England)(Repealed)). When
the Star Chamber was abolished in 1640, its judicially defined offense of perjury
passed into English common law, reaching any cases of false testimony not covered
by the terms of the statute.
Edward Coke, whose views strongly influenced early American law, wrote in his
Third Institute, published in 1641, that perjury was committed when, after a ‘lawful
oath’ was administered in a ‘judicial proceeding’, a person swore ‘absolutely and
falsely’ concerned a point ‘material’ to the issue in question (*164). In this form,
the law remained unchanged into the twentieth century.”
17. In India, law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section
191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to
giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are
based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath.
Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which
has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate,
that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite
taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and
stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let lose by
vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal
with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive
recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal
Code. If the system is to service, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no
exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country.
18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of proceedings in Suo
Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.77 of 2001, we are prima
facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for
the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a
statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of
India in terms of-Article 217 of the constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement
supported by an affricative of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to
be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence
within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false
affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being
legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima
facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence
as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.
19. With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this
Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a
complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a
Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and
take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.
Leave a Reply