LexAMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 403 AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ petition (Civil) No. 39 of 2006) MAY 11, 2011 [G. S. SINGHVI AND ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: A B 0. 19, r. 3 CPC and 0. 11 of Supreme Court Rules - c Affidavits in support of petitions - Affirming of contents of the petition in the affidavits - Disclosure of source of information in an affidavit - Significance of - Explained - HELD: In the instant writ petition, the petitioner approached the Court in a I casual manner - The affidavit filed by him in support of the 0 petition, relying on which the Court issued notice, was not at all modelled either on 0. 19 r. 3 CPC or 0. 11 of Supreme Court Rules - If the rules of affirming the affida.vits were followed, it would have been difficult for the petitioner to file the petition and so much of judicial time would have been E; saved - Perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with 0. 19, r. 3 CPC or with 0. 11, rr. 5 and 13 of Supreme Court Rules, should not be entertained by the Court - Registry of the. Court.directed to scrutinize affidavits in all petitions/applications strictly - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. PLEADINGS: F Inconsistent stands by writ petitioner - HELD: A litigant who comes to Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must G come with clean hands - He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions - It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a 403 H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy and must be governed by principles of 'uberrima fide' - Equity - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. B CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: Articles 32and 21 - Writ petition alleging infringement of right of privacy of the petitioner stating that his telephone conversations were being intercepted at the behest of the Government- HELD: The petitioner invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court without filing a proper affidavit - C The nature of challenge in the petition is very serious as he is alleging an attempt by the government of intercepting his phone for extraneous considerations - It is, therefore, imperative that before m<Jking such an a/legation the petitioner should be careful, circumspeCt and should file a · D proper affidavit in support of the averments in the petition - This is the primary duty of a petitioner, who invokes the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966. E Article 32 - Writ petition - Conduct of petitioner - Writ petition filed alleging interception of his telephone conversations by the Government agencies at the behest of the political party in power - A/legations directly and indirectly made in the writ petition against the said political party F impleading it as one of the respondents -Interim injunction passed by Court - Later, it was brought before the Court that the order intercepting the phone calls were fabricated and a criminal case had already been registered against accused persons - Affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the a/legations against the said political party - HELD: The G main case of the petitioner is based on his a/legations against the said political party - Petitioner has been shifting his stand to suit his convenience - The instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous a/legations and by suppressing material facts - The so-called H legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 405 on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation - A No case of tapping of telephone has been made out against the statutory authorities in view of the criminal case, which is going on, and the petitioner's stand that he is satisfied with the investigation in that case - Besides, the petitioner in fifing the writ petition largely relied upon the information received B from an accused in the criminal case. Article 32 - Writ petition - Suppression of material fact - Effect of - Writ petition alleging tapping of telephone of writ petitioner-The communications on the basis of which the C interception was al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.