The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in a case where the petitioner denied filing a Special Leave Petition and asserted unfamiliarity with the advocates who appeared on his behalf.

Significantly, the order challenged in the SLP had brought an end to the criminal proceedings against the sole witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case. However, during the court proceedings, the respondents informed that the SLP was filed with the intent to prolong the false case against the witness, allegedly without the petitioner's knowledge.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case and reserved the verdict, emphasizing that the matter would be taken seriously. Justice Sharma described the situation as "very unfortunate," while Justice Trivedi strongly criticized the Advocates-on-Record for their negligent conduct in handling Supreme Court procedures, particularly regarding the filing of vakalatnamas and their appearances before the court.

"This is the one which came to our notice. In how many cases such things might have been taken advantage of, we don't know. And you people just sign the vakalatnama, get the fees and then get away by saying sorry...Something needs to be done. Atleast we won't shut our eyes. If you have this excuse, that we are practising in Supreme Court, we don't know trial court lawyers or client, that's not done. Advocate-on-Record owes responsibility to the institution also. We are not going to be soft. Don't expect anything from us", said Justice Trivedi.

In response to Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave's request that the Advocate-on-Record in the case be let off with a warning, Justice Trivedi remarked, "There is no system or method in the Supreme Court. I don't understand how... it should function like a model code... The solidarity and unity among lawyers is so strong that you cannot be held accountable. We will not allow this to continue."

Earlier, the Court had demanded an explanation from the Notary who attested the petitioner's affidavit, questioning how it was attested in the petitioner's absence. The Court expressed deep shock upon discovering that the vakalatnama for filing the SLP was not signed by the petitioner. Instead, someone had impersonated him and filed the case as part of a conspiracy.

Today, the Notary appeared before the Court and offered an apology. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde requested the bench to consider that the Notary had acted without any malice. However, Justice Trivedi firmly responded, stating that there was a "clear dereliction of duty."

During the hearing, the bench also engaged with the petitioner's daughter and her husband. They collected the contact numbers through which the petitioner was allegedly communicated with regarding the filing of the SLP.

To recap, Nitish Katara, a Delhi businessman, was murdered in 2002 by Vikas Yadav, the son of politician D.P. Yadav. The trial court ruled the case to be an honor killing and convicted Vikas Yadav, sentencing him to life imprisonment in 2008. In 2016, the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence, imposing 25 years of imprisonment without remission for Yadav.

AK, a key witness in the case, testified to having seen Nitish Katara with the accused on the night of the murder. Reportedly, there was an attempt to poison the witness, and he was subsequently implicated in as many as 37 criminal cases.

The present case originated when the petitioner filed an FIR against SS and others, alleging that they had kidnapped his daughter, R, and taken her away. Later, R made a statement asserting that she had married SS willingly. However, she also accused AK of raping her, claiming he encountered them when they eloped.

In the case, the Allahabad High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings against AK on an application under Section 482 CrPC. R subsequently filed an application for recall of this order, which was dismissed. The present SLP was then filed in the name of the petitioner, R's father, challenging this dismissal.

The matter was first listed on May 17, 2024, when Justices Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal issued a notice. On July 9, 2024, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court Registry, stating that on July 3, he had been summoned to a police station in Buduan, UP, where he was given notice of the case and asked to sign a form.

In his letter, the petitioner clarified that he had neither engaged any advocate to file the SLP nor signed any vakalatnama or affidavit related to it. He alleged that the petition had been filed under a conspiracy by someone else and requested strict action against those responsible.

To this, an office report was submitted to the bench of Justices Trivedi and Sharma, indicating that the petitioner claimed he had not filed the SLP.

On July 31, the bench addressed the issue regarding the petitioner's signatures on the vakalatnama. It was revealed that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) had received the signed vakalatnama from another advocate (Advocate C) but had not witnessed the petitioner signing it himself. The bench expressed serious displeasure at this revelation.

Subsequently, the concerned Notary appeared and admitted to the mistake of attesting the petitioner's affidavit in his absence, based on the identification of signatures by Advocate C. Meanwhile, SS stated that he and his wife, R, had met the petitioner 3-4 years ago, at which time the petitioner had provided R with a signed vakalatnama. According to SS, this document was then given to Advocate E.

Case Title : BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UP | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18885/2024