Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC order for action against lawyers who fudged copy of award

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed Allahabad High Court's recent order for initiation of criminal proceedings and disciplinary action against two advocates who allegedly misled the court by filing a manipulated land acquisition award mentioning higher rate of interest than the one in the original document [Shiv Kumar Mishra v Bareilly Development Authority]

A Bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar also stayed the direction for lodging complaints before the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to seek cancellation of the advocates' licences.

The interim order was passed on a petition filed by advocate Shiv Kant Mishra, one of the counsel accused of misconduct in the matter. The matter will be heard next on October 12.

On July 30, a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra at Allahabad had found that advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra deliberately altered the contents of the award to secure monetary benefits for their client. 

The Court thus ruled that the advocates’ conduct prima facie attracted the offence of perjury under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for submitting false evidence.

It directed the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and thereafter file an appropriate complaint for perjury before the competent magistrate.

Additionally, the registrar general was directed to lodge complaints before the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council seeking cancellation of the advocates' licences “for their unpardonable conduct.”

The High Court also made strong observations on the legal profession, stating that people approach courts today not because they want to but only because they have no other option left

“It is often said that the profession of advocacy is a noble profession however, a deep introspection is required by the bar whether anyone other than the members of the bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore? Citizens approach the courts through the members of the bar out of sheer exasperation, desperation and helplessness, not because they want to, but because they have no other option," the Bench stated.

The High Court was dealing with a review petition filed by the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) against a May 2024 judgment of the High Court directing it to pay interest to landowners at 9 percent for the first year and 15 percent thereafter on compensation awarded for acquired land.

According to the BDA, the original award passed by the land acquisition officer on April 26, 2016 merely stated that interest would be payable "as per rules" from the date possession was taken until the award was passed.

The landowners later filed a petition before the High Court claiming the payment was not made.

The typed copy of the award attached to the petition said that interest would be payable at 9 percent for the first year and 15 percent for the remaining period.

The petition specifically sought payment at those rates, leading a co-ordinate bench to grant the relief to the land owners.

However, the BDA later discovered the discrepancy between the original award and the copy attached to the landowners' petition.

It then approached the High Court seeking review of the High Court judgment. The same was allowed by the High Court which ordered action against the lawyers.

The same has now been stayed by the top court.