On Friday, in a significant procedural challenge concerning the accuracy of submissions made to constitutional courts, the Supreme Court stepped in to examine a serious lapse by the Union government, after it was alleged that incorrect information had been placed before the Bench in a sensitive matter linked to an ongoing criminal investigation, raising concerns about how such errors can derail judicial decision-making.
The controversy began when the matter, arising from an appeal connected to a vigilance probe against former DGP Jacob Thomas, came up before a Bench led by Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. During the hearing, the Union government, through Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, stated that the State authorities had not furnished details of officers travelling to the Netherlands in connection with the investigation.
The Counsel for the petitioner, however, countered this claim, asserting that the Kerala Vigilance Department had already communicated the information to the Centre through a formal letter. Faced with the conflicting versions, the Court paused proceedings to allow the government time to verify the factual position.
When the matter was taken up again, the Union government conceded that the petitioner’s submission was correct and that the information had indeed been shared earlier. Taking serious note of the lapse, the Bench observed that the incorrect statement could have misled the Court, remarking that it “could have resulted in a wrong order.”
Emphasising the responsibility cast on parties, particularly the State, to assist the Court with complete and accurate facts, the Bench imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Union of India, directing that the amount be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
Consequently, the matter was adjourned for further hearing.
Case Title: Sathyan Naravoor Vs. Dr. Jacob Thomas IPS & Ors.
Case No.: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1353/2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Jayanth Muth Raj, AOR. Harshad V. Hameed, Adv. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj, AOR. Mohammed Sadique T.A., Adv. Thulasi K Raj, Adv.Aparna Menon, Adv. Chinnu Maria Antony,
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR. Karthik, Adv.Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Sugam Agrawal, Adv.Veera Mahuli, Adv.Nanditha S, Sr. Adv.Jayanth Muth Raj, A.S.G. Suryaprakash V.Raju, & ors.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
