RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. R. KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE versus -

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 12-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
p 
RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 
MR.R.KARUPPAN,ADVOCATE 
MAY 12, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Chapter XI-Sections 191 & 193. 
Pe1j111J'-Public justice-offences relating to giving false evidence-Duty 
of court to curb. 
Writ-Quo warranto-Raising dispute of age of Hon 'ble the Chief 
Justice of India-Affidavit in support of Writ Petition-Making false statement 
in it knowing that it is wrong-Held constitutes offence of giving false 
evidence under Section 191-Direction for lodging complaint against the 
petitioner issued 
Affidavit-It is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 IPC-
Swearing in a false affidavit-Held constitutes offence of perjury. 
The Respondent filed a Petition before, this Court praying for issuance 
of writ of Quo warranto against the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. In this 
E petition he had raised the question of the alleged disputed age of the Hon'ble 
Chief Justice of India. Though he fully knew that the age ofHon'ble the Chief 
J.ustice of India had been determined by the President of India under Article 
217 of the Constitution yet in his affidavit filed in support of the averments 
made in the Writ Petition he made a false statement that the age of Hon'ble 
F the Chief Justice of India has not been so determined by the President. 
Disposing of the suo motu proceedings initiated against the respondent, 
the Court 
HELD: 1. The Respondent is primafacie guilty of offence of perjury. 
Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are 
G not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and 
relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the ad.judication of which 
is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedi_ngs are 
to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent 
possible in accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court 
H cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or 
750 
RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS MR. R. KARUl'PAN, ADVOCATE, 
75 J 
insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous A 
considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity 
of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of 
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy. 1756-8-DJ 
2. The offences incorporated under Chapter XI of l.P.C. are based upon 
recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. 
Unscrupulous litigants arc found daily reporting to utter Blatant falsehood 
B 
in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial 
system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created 
that most of the witnesses coming to the courts despite taking oath make 
false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective C 
and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, 
concededly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere 
existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke 
with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite 
proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal 
Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The D 
present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many 
of the litigants in the country. [758-A-C) 
3. The respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ 
peti!ion (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ E 
petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Hon'ble the Chief 
Justice of India has not been determined by the President of India in terms of 
Article 217 of the Constitution. Such a statement supported by an affidavit of 
the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false 
and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is 
evidence within the meaning of section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a F 
person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under 
section 193 IPC. The respondent herein being legally bound by an oath to 
state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is primafacie held 
to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false 
evidence 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.