Zero‑Tolerance Protocol for Impersonated NGO Writs: Police Probe and Personal Costs for Fraud on the Court

Introduction

Case: Delhi Ki Galiyan NGO v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors., W.P.(C) 10595/2024
Citation: 2025 DHC 9109
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Date of Decision: 13 October 2025

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was purportedly instituted in the name of “Delhi Ki Galiyan NGO” seeking directions to municipal authorities and law enforcement to demolish alleged illegal and unauthorized construction at a property in Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi.

The proceeding took an unexpected turn when the NGO’s President, Mr. Akbar Ali, appeared in person and categorically denied authorizing the filing. He produced identity proof and organizational documents demonstrating that the deponent of the petition, one Mr. Farid Ali, had no connection with the NGO and had allegedly misused the NGO’s letterhead — a fact the President had publicly notified via newspaper notices and a complaint. In parallel, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) placed on record a status report indicating that the property in question had already been sealed and that further action was scheduled.

The case thus raised two core issues:

• Process integrity: How should the High Court respond to a writ petition filed in the name of an NGO without authorization, amounting to deception upon the court?
• Administrative enforcement: What is the status of municipal action regarding the impugned construction when the writ itself is tainted by impersonation?

Summary of the Judgment

The Court treated the matter as a serious instance of deception and abuse of process. Acting on the President’s unequivocal statement and supporting documentation:

• The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn at the instance of the legitimate office bearer of the NGO.
• The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Central District, to investigate and take appropriate action against the impersonator (Farid Ali) in accordance with law.
• Personal costs of INR 50,000 were imposed on the impersonator, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association within six weeks.
• The DCP was tasked with ensuring payment, with a compliance mechanism: if unpaid within six weeks, the matter would be listed before the Registrar for compliance.
• On the merits of the alleged unauthorized construction, the Court recorded MCD’s status report that the property had been sealed and that further action was scheduled—indicating that administrative enforcement was proceeding independently.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment, as reproduced, does not explicitly cite prior judicial precedents. Nevertheless, its reasoning and remedial architecture align with well-established Supreme Court principles on fraud upon the court, abuse of process, and imposition of realistic costs to deter misuse of judicial forums. While not cited by the Court here, the following decisions provide contextual jurisprudence that is consistent with the approach taken:

• S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1: Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; litigants must approach courts with clean hands.
• A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221: Fraud on the court is an egregious wrong; any order obtained by fraud is a nullity.
• K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573: Abuse of process warrants judicial intervention to prevent misuse of the legal system.
• Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar, (2017) 5 SCC 496: Advocating realistic, deterrent costs to curb frivolous and dishonest litigation.
• State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402: Guidelines to prevent misuse of public interest litigation; vigilance against motivated or unauthorized filings in the name of public causes or entities.

Important note: The above authorities are not stated by the Court in this judgment; they are referenced here to illuminate the broader doctrinal context that supports the Court’s stance.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds along three interlinked axes: process integrity, remedial deterrence, and administrative continuity.

1) Process integrity and locus standi

The writ purports to be filed by an NGO, a juristic entity, which can act only through authorized office bearers. The President’s in‑person statement, identity proof, organizational records, and prior public notice together established a prima facie case of impersonation and lack of authority. In effect, the person who deposed the affidavit lacked locus standi, rendering the filing an abuse of the court’s process.

Having established the absence of authority, the Court took on record the documents and treated the petition as unauthorized. On the legitimate President’s request, the Court allowed withdrawal, as there was no valid petitioner before it.

2) Characterization as fraud and abuse of process

The Court expressly described the conduct as “deception and fraud” and an “abuse of the process of law.” It underscored the solemn function of courts in dispensing justice and the consequent need to come down “heavily on such unscrupulous persons.” This language situates the case within the doctrine that fraud on the court contaminates the very integrity of adjudication and must be deterred decisively.

3) Remedial deterrence: personal costs and police investigation

The Court crafted a two‑pronged remedial response:

• Criminal law pathway: By directing the DCP (Central District) to investigate, the Court ensured that alleged offences potentially implicating impersonation, forgery, cheating, or related wrongdoing are examined by the competent authority. This is a prophylactic and corrective measure aimed at accountability beyond the confines of the civil/writ forum.
• Monetary sanctions: The imposition of personal costs of INR 50,000 on the impersonator—payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association—serves as a deterrent and a signal that misuse will entail tangible financial consequences. Notably, the Court operationalized compliance by assigning enforcement to the DCP and setting a firm six‑week deadline, with an explicit consequence of listing before the Registrar upon default.

4) Administrative continuity: municipal enforcement proceeds independently

On the substantive town-planning grievance, the Court recorded the MCD status report confirming that the property had already been sealed and that further action was scheduled. This demonstrates that even where a writ is tainted and withdrawn, bona fide administrative enforcement against unauthorized construction continues within the statutory framework. The Court thus avoided entangling merits in an illegitimate proceeding while ensuring that public law enforcement remains on course.

Impact and Implications

The decision functions as a practical protocol for High Court response when faced with impersonated NGO filings:

• For NGOs and Associations: A clear warning that misuse of an organization’s name in court will trigger both police investigation and personal monetary sanctions against the impersonator. NGOs should maintain robust authorization protocols and safeguard their letterheads, seals, and digital assets, including public notices upon theft/misuse.
• For Counsel and Filers: Expect heightened judicial scrutiny of authority to represent juristic persons. Lawyers and petition drafters must verify the mandate and organizational capacity of the deponent to avoid professional and legal exposure.
• For the Registry and Law Enforcement: The enforcement‑through‑DCP and compliance‑through‑Registrar mechanism indicates a template for time‑bound compliance and enforcement of costs in cases of process abuse.
• For Public Interest and Writ Practice: The ruling reinforces the line between legitimate public‑spirited litigation and manipulated/unauthorized filings. It is likely to deter opportunistic, covertly motivated petitions filed in the names of NGOs without consent.
• For Urban Governance: The Court’s acknowledgment of MCD’s ongoing action underscores that administrative remedies against illegal construction proceed on their own statutory footing and are not dependent on (or vitiated by) flawed private litigation.

In sum, the decision strengthens the court’s institutional gatekeeping over its processes, disincentivizes fraudulent access to writ jurisdiction, and preserves the momentum of municipal law enforcement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Writ Petition (Article 226): A constitutional remedy allowing individuals and entities to seek relief from High Courts against state action or inaction.
• Deponent: The person who swears to the truth of the contents of an affidavit filed in court.
• Locus Standi: The legal capacity or standing to bring a case or be heard. For NGOs, authorized office bearers must act on the entity’s behalf.
• Abuse of Process/Fraud on the Court: Misusing court procedures for improper purposes; fraud undermines the integrity of adjudication and attracts stringent judicial response.
• Costs: Monetary amounts imposed by courts to compensate or deter; here, used punitively and directed to an institutional beneficiary (the Bar Clerk Association).
• DCP (Deputy Commissioner of Police): Senior police officer tasked here with investigating the impersonation and ensuring payment of costs.
• Status Report: An official update filed by an authority (MCD) informing the court of actions taken; in this case, sealing of the property and scheduling further action.
• Sealing of Property: A municipal enforcement step to prohibit use/occupation of premises that violate building/land‑use norms.
• Registrar (High Court): Judicial officer who oversees compliance and administrative listings; the case would be listed before the Registrar if costs are not paid in time.
• Khasra Number: A land‑record identifier used in revenue and property descriptions.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Delhi Ki Galiyan NGO v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. establishes a clear and forceful protocol when the writ jurisdiction is invoked through impersonation: the court will treat the filing as a serious fraud upon the judicial process, permit withdrawal at the behest of the legitimate office bearer, direct a police investigation against the impersonator, and impose personal, time‑bound costs with an explicit compliance framework. Simultaneously, the Court ensured that municipal enforcement against alleged illegal construction remains unaffected and continues within the statutory regime.

The decision reinforces foundational principles of process integrity—clean hands, proper authorization, and accountability—and signals a zero‑tolerance stance toward the misuse of NGOs’ names in litigation. Going forward, it is likely to shape court and bar practices by encouraging rigorous verification of authority in filings, while reassuring that genuine public law enforcement will not be derailed by fraudulent litigation maneuvers.