Officials giving false information to government lawyers can amount to contempt of court: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently held that government officials giving false information to lawyers representing the government directly interferes with the administration of justice and can amount to contempt of court. [Abdul Malik v. District Collector]

A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and B Pugalendhi made the observation after finding that a photocopy of a revenue record furnished to a government advocate appeared to have concealed an entry showing that a parcel of patta (privately owned) land was also a water spread area.

“Any false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice. It would constitute contempt of Court,” the Court said.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by J Abdul Malik and J Siddiq Ali, residents of Thuvarankurichi village in Tiruchirappalli district. The petitioners alleged that a water channel had been blocked and encroached upon. They sought directions to the authorities to remove alleged encroachments in Sakkiliyankulam channel in Survey No. 33/1 and Karanthapadikulam in Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2.

During the hearing, the Government Advocate conceded that Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2 were water bodies. However, on the basis of written instructions received from the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, the government submitted that Survey No. 33/1 was patta land.

The petitioners then drew the Court's attention to the relevant A-Register extract. It showed that Survey No. 33/1 had been classified as a water spread area or “Neerpidipu”.

The Court clarified that a water spread area could also be patta land, but the rights of the patta holder over such land were limited.

It consequently directed the authorities to maintain the character of Survey No. 33/1 as a water spread area. Encroachments on the water bodies were ordered to be removed after giving the alleged encroachers notice and an opportunity of hearing. The exercise must be completed within 4 months.

However, the Bench did not leave the matter at that. It found that while the A-Register contained a remark identifying Survey No. 33/1 as a water spread area, the remarks column in the photocopy furnished to the government advocate was blank.

“While taking photo copy, this entry appears to have been concealed. This is nothing a short of misleading the Court,” the Bench observed.

The judges pointed out that courts frequently rely on submissions made by government counsel, who themselves rely on instructions received from the officials concerned.

The Court, therefore, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to call for an explanation from the Tahsildar of Marungapuri Taluk.

The report has been directed to be placed before the Bench on August 6. The Court said it would thereafter decide whether to initiate suo motu contempt of court action.

Advocate RR Kannan appeared for the petitioners.

Government Advocate P Rajagopalan represented the State authorities.

[Read Order]