In the case of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.a division Bench of Justice Bela M.Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court came down heavily on legal malpractices and stressed the need to uphold the integrity of legal proceeding and directed a CBI probe into the filing of a petition in the instant case. The bench was critical of some of the respondents, their associates and advocates, who appeared to have forged and fabricated documents to be filed in the court with a malafide intention to pursue false proceedings in the name of the petitioner.

Bhagwan Singh, present in court, stated he did not know the advocates involved and was unaware of the proceedings until notified by the police. The court instructed R.P.S. Yadav to provide details of Karan Singh and issued a notice for him to appear. Bhagwan Singh was also asked to file an affidavit. Karan Singh Yadav stated he received the signed `Vakalatnama` from Sukhpal Singh, Bhagwan Singh's son-in-law, and passed it on by him. The court directed notary A.N. Singh, who attested the documents, and Singh's daughter and son-in-law to attend the next hearing, emphasizing the gravity of the matter.

The court noted procedural issues and directed the Allahabad High Court Registrar General to send relevant records, and added Sukh Pal and Rinki as respondents. In court, Ms. Rinki claimed that she had regular contact with her father and that he signed the vakalatnama, which was supported by her husband. Bhagwan Singh refuted this, stating that he was having no contact since 2013. Advocates Karan Singh and R.P.S. Yadav reiterated their statements. Notary Amar Nath Singh and Advocate Anubhav, both represented by senior counsel, apologized for their actions.

In the given case Advocate Anubhav Yashwant Yadav filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on behalf of Bhagwan Singh, using a notarized affidavit and a Vakalatnama purportedly signed by Bhagwan Singh. It emerged during the hearings that the Vakalatnama was passed among several advocates, with allegations of forged signatures and contradictory statements from Singh's son-in-law, Sukhpal Singh. The notary admitted to attesting documents without Singh's presence, while Singh consistently denied signing the Vakalatnama or having contact with his daughter Rinki and son-in-law since 2013. Despite Rinki and Sukhpal asserting contact and receiving the Vakalatnama from Bhagwan Singh, the court noted procedural irregularities and possible false cases linked to the high-profile Nitish Katara case, necessitating further investigation.

Significantly, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, in its order dated 06th February, 2015, noted the trauma and pressure faced by the respondent, aimed at preventing him from testifying against the accused. The Court specifically observed that the respondent was continuously threatened and remained under pressure for serving as a witness.

After due examination of the case the bench observed:

• That the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly. 

• The Appeals were disposed of in terms of this Order. The same was directed to be listed for the submission of the Report by the CBI on 25th November, 2024.

Case Details: BHAGWAN SINGH v/s STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 2024 INSC 708

Advocates for Petitioners: Adv.Anubhav, Adv.Rishi Kumar Singh

Advocates for Respondents: Adv.Sakshi kakkar, Adv. Apoorva Singhal