False Affidavits in Indian Courts

The Pernicious Practice of False Affidavits in Indian Courts: Legal Framework, Judicial Condemnation, and Consequences

Introduction

An affidavit is a sworn written statement, affirmed or declared before a person having authority to administer an oath or affirmation. In the adversarial system of justice prevalent in India, affidavits play a crucial role, often forming the bedrock of pleadings, applications, and evidence presented before courts. The sanctity of judicial proceedings is predicated on the truthfulness of statements made and evidence adduced. However, the submission of false affidavits poses a grave threat to the administration of justice, striking at the very foundation of the rule of law and eroding public confidence in judicial institutions. The Indian judiciary has consistently taken a stern view of this practice, recognizing it as a serious impediment to the dispensation of justice. This article seeks to analyze the legal framework in India for addressing false affidavits, delve into the robust judicial condemnation of this malpractice through an examination of pertinent case law, and explore the multifaceted consequences that flow from such conduct.

Legal Framework for Addressing False Affidavits in India

The Indian legal system provides for penal consequences and other actions against individuals who file false affidavits. The primary legislative provisions are found in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Several provisions of the IPC are attracted when a false affidavit is filed:

  • Section 191 (Giving false evidence): Defines the offence of giving false evidence as being legally bound by an oath, or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true. An affidavit is a declaration made under oath.
  • Section 192 (Fabricating false evidence): Pertains to causing any circumstance to exist or making any false entry in any book or record, or making any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, and so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding.
  • Section 193 (Punishment for false evidence): Prescribes punishment for intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and also fine.
  • Section 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence): Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

The CrPC lays down the procedure for prosecution in cases of offences against public justice, including the filing of false affidavits:

  • Section 195(1)(b)(i): Bars a court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 of the IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
  • Section 340: Provides the procedure for dealing with offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b). If a court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect, make a complaint thereof in writing, and send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Filing a false affidavit can also amount to criminal contempt of court.

  • Section 2(c): Defines "criminal contempt" as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

Judicial Interpretation and Condemnation of False Affidavits

The Indian judiciary has consistently and unequivocally condemned the practice of filing false affidavits, viewing it as a serious affront to the majesty of law and an impediment to the administration of justice. Numerous pronouncements from the Supreme Court and various High Courts underscore the gravity of this misconduct.

The Gravity and Impact of False Affidavits

The Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Others (1995 SCC CRI 608) delivered a scathing indictment of filing false affidavits:

"The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice... Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly..."

This strong sentiment has been echoed in numerous subsequent judgments. The Delhi High Court in Ms. Nidhi Kaushik v. Union Of India & Ors. (2014), reiterated these observations, emphasizing that "no court can ignore such conduct" (Ref 9). Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in Shimbhu Singh v. State Of U.P And Others (2012) quoted Dhananjay Sharma (supra), highlighting the clarion call to keep the stream of justice pure (Ref 15).

The Supreme Court in Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. Boc India Limited And Others (2016 SCC 3 70) noted with concern the "alarming increase" in reported cases of false affidavits, describing it as an "unhealthy trend" that "should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair" (Ref 6, 18). The Court recognized that such conduct undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.

In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995 SCC 1 421), the Supreme Court held that the production of a false and fabricated certificate to defeat a claim for transfer of a case amounted to undermining the court's authority and the administration of justice, constituting contempt of court (Ref 2). This principle was affirmed in cases like Dhananjay Sharma (supra) and Satish Lodhi v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2011) (Ref 23).

The Delhi High Court in Rajeev Malhotra v. Union Of India And Others (2001) observed that "if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties" (Ref 10). This judgment also referred to Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and others (1995 Supp (2) S.C.C 388), where it was noted that the tendency to file false affidavits is a matter of serious concern.

The importance of approaching the court with "clean hands" was emphasized in Oswal Fats And Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly And Others (2010 SCC 4 728), where the Supreme Court held that suppression of material facts or making false statements precludes a party from being heard on merits (Ref 5). Similarly, in Kishore Samrite v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2013 SCC 2 398), the Supreme Court dealt sternly with abuse of judicial process through petitions founded on false averments, highlighting the necessity of protecting judicial integrity (Ref 8).

Consequences: Perjury, Prosecution, and Contempt

The judiciary has affirmed that filing false affidavits can lead to prosecution for perjury under the IPC and/or proceedings for contempt of court.

Prosecution for Perjury (IPC and CrPC)

In M.S Ahlawat v. State Of Haryana And Another (2000 SCC 1 278), the Supreme Court clarified that a conviction for perjury under Section 193 IPC for fabricating false records before the Court must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court itself cannot bypass these statutory procedures, even under its expansive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (Ref 4). This was also noted in Shamsher Bahadur Singh @ Nirmal Singh v. State Of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2011) (Ref 25).

The Supreme Court in B.K Gupta v. Damodar H. Bajaj And Others (2001 SCC 9 742) elaborated on the requirements under Section 340 CrPC. It held that for a court to direct the filing of a complaint, it must not only find that a person has given a false affidavit but must also form an opinion that "it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence" (Ref 22).

The Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Tiwari v. State Of U.P. (2016), citing Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh (AIR 1967 SC 68), held that false declarations in affidavits, intended to mislead the court, constitute offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC (Ref 13). This reliance on Baban Singh (supra) was also seen in Kamla Sharma And Others v. Sukhdevlal And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2022) (Ref 14).

The Calcutta High Court in Nilesh P. Mehta & Ors. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. (2017) referred to Section 191 IPC for perjury and cited Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate ((2001) 5 SCC 289), where the Supreme Court emphasized the sanctity of affidavits and the statutory definition of perjury (Ref 16). The R. Karuppan (supra) case was also cited in Sciemed Overseas (supra) for its emphasis on preserving the integrity of written statements.

Procedural aspects of prosecution were discussed in State v. Ugam Singh (Rajasthan High Court, 1961), which suggested that for prosecuting false evidence in an affidavit (where the deponent has not personally appeared as a witness), the procedure under Sections 476 to 479 CrPC (now Section 340 CrPC) is appropriate (Ref 17).

Contempt of Court

Filing a false affidavit is repeatedly held to constitute criminal contempt. As established in Dhananjay Sharma (supra), anyone resorting to filing false evidence "commits criminal contempt of the court" (Ref 3, 11). This was also the finding in Chandra Shashi (supra) (Ref 2).

The Supreme Court in Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia ((2000) 2 SCC 367), a case frequently cited (e.g., in Ms. Nidhi Kaushik (supra), Rajeev Malhotra (supra), and Court On Its Own Motion… v. State & Others… (Delhi High Court, 2008) (Ref 24)), deprecated the practice of incorporating false statements in affidavits and held that a deponent making such false affirmations renders himself guilty of contempt. The court noted that it is not merely a denial of fact but a positive assertion made with definite intent to pass off a falsity.

In Uttar Pradesh Resident Employees Cooperative House Building Society And Others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And Another (2003 SCC; 2004 SCC), the Supreme Court explicitly stated that "filing of a false affidavit amounts to contempt of court," particularly when it is done with the intention of misleading the court (Ref 12, 19). This was also affirmed in Satish Lodhi (supra) (Ref 23).

The Delhi High Court in Court On Its Own Motion… (supra), citing Murray & Co. (supra) and Dhananjay Sharma (supra), reiterated that deliberately filing a false affidavit amounts to contempt if it tends to cause substantial interference with the due course of judicial proceedings or impedes the administration of justice (Ref 24).

Procedural Adherence and Judicial Approach

While taking a stern view, courts also emphasize procedural fairness. In Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner Of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi And Another (2011 SCC 5 496), the Supreme Court highlighted the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings, demanding strict adherence to procedural standards, including the necessity of Advocate General's consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating criminal contempt, unless the court acts suo motu (Ref 7).

The broader principle of maintaining judicial integrity, as discussed in cases like Amar Pal Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2012 SCC 6 491) concerning judicial decorum (Ref 1), underpins the judiciary's intolerance towards false affidavits which directly attack this integrity.

Courts have also resorted to imposing heavy costs as a deterrent. In Sciemed Overseas (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the imposition of costs of ₹10 lakhs for a misleading affidavit, stating that an apology was insufficient and such penalties are justified to uphold the sanctity of the judicial system (Ref 6, 18). Exemplary costs were also imposed in Kishore Samrite (supra), where the Court also directed a CBI investigation into the filing of false affidavits and misuse of judicial process (Ref 8).

In egregious cases, courts have directed the registration of FIRs. For instance, in Shimbhu Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court, after dismissing the writ petition, directed the Registrar General to lodge an FIR against the petitioner for filing a false affidavit (Ref 15). The case of Sathyanarayana Petitioner v. T.J. Dhanakoti Koti (2017 SCC ONLINE MAD 5573, Madras High Court) provides an instance where a court noted a false affidavit concerning an advocate's demise and its impact on the proceedings (Ref 21).

Procedural Mechanisms for Dealing with False Affidavits

Courts in India have several mechanisms at their disposal to address the filing of false affidavits:

Initiation of Proceedings under CrPC Section 340

As discussed, this is the statutory route for prosecuting offences like perjury. It involves a preliminary inquiry by the court where the false affidavit was filed, a finding that prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice, and the making of a formal complaint to a competent Magistrate. Cases like M.S Ahlawat (supra) and B.K Gupta (supra) outline the contours of this process.

Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings

Superior courts possess inherent powers, and powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceedings suo motu against persons who file false affidavits that obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. Chandra Shashi (supra) and Dhananjay Sharma (supra) are illustrative of this power.

Imposition of Costs

Courts frequently impose costs, sometimes exemplary, on parties who file false affidavits. This serves both as a deterrent to the erring party and others, and can also be a measure to compensate the aggrieved party or the court for wasted judicial time. Sciemed Overseas (supra) and Kishore Samrite (supra) are key examples.

Directing Investigation or Lodging of FIR

In particularly serious cases of falsehood or fabrication, courts may direct an investigation by law enforcement agencies or direct the court's registry to file an FIR, as seen in Kishore Samrite (supra) and Shimbhu Singh (supra).

Challenges and Considerations

While the legal framework and judicial intent are clear, certain challenges and considerations persist. Courts must exercise vigilance to detect and penalize the filing of false affidavits, yet also ensure that these provisions are not misused to harass bona fide litigants who may have made inadvertent errors. The requirement of "expediency in the interest of justice" under Section 340 CrPC, as highlighted in B.K Gupta (supra), necessitates a careful and considered application of judicial mind.

Establishing the falsity of a statement and, more crucially, the deponent's knowledge or belief regarding its falsity (mens rea), can be a significant evidentiary challenge. The "alarming increase" in such cases, as noted by the Supreme Court in Sciemed Overseas (supra), calls for consistent, firm, and timely action by the courts at all levels to effectively curb this menace and reinforce the sanctity of sworn statements.

Conclusion

The filing of a false affidavit in a court of law is not merely a procedural irregularity but a grave offence that undermines the very edifice of the justice delivery system in India. It is an act of perjury and can constitute criminal contempt of court, warranting stringent action. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provide a comprehensive legal arsenal to combat this pernicious practice.

The judiciary, through a consistent line of pronouncements, has unequivocally condemned such conduct, emphasizing that the "fountain of justice" must be kept pure and unadulterated. Courts have demonstrated their resolve by initiating prosecutions, levying heavy costs, and taking stern contempt action. It is imperative for litigants, legal professionals, and all stakeholders in the judicial process to uphold the highest standards of truthfulness and integrity. Only by ensuring that statements made on oath are sacrosanct can the dignity of the courts be preserved and public faith in the administration of justice be maintained and strengthened.