#affidavit Archives - Prime Legal

Case title – Association of Democratic Reforms and Anr Vs Union of India and Ors

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017

Order on – March 18th, 2024

Quoram – Chief Justice of India Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the case

The Bench by its judgement dated February 15^th 2024, held the electoral bond scheme introduced in 2018 to be unconstitutional. The Apex Court unanimously ruled to strike down the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding and specified the disclosure of data on poll bonds purchased and redeemed with the effect from April 12, 2019 till the date of the verdict.

Court’s Analysis and Order

The Court while adjudicating the Miscellaneous Application Diary No 12580 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Application No 596 of 2024 made the following directions.

The Court in sub-paragraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 221 of its judgment directed the State Bank of India to submit details of the Electoral Bonds purchased in the aforementioned period and Political Parties which have received contributions through Electoral Bonds.

The Court pointed out that the relief sought for pre-dating the point of disclosure could not be dealt under the said MA as it would amount to a substantive modification of the judgement.

The Court thereby held the MA to be unmaintainable and accordingly dismissed the same.

The Court further under MA No 596 of 2024 also stipulated to comprehend the alphanumeric number and serial number of the Electoral Bonds which were purchased and redeemed.

The Counsel Mr Harish N Salve appearing on behalf of the SBI submitted that there is no reservation on the part of the SBI in disclosing all details which are in its possession and custody.

The Court in order to fully effectuate its judgment and to obviate any controversy in the future, directed the Chairman and the Managing Director of SBI to file an affidavit on or before 21 March 2024 indicating that SBI has disclosed all details of the Electoral Bonds which are in its possession and custody and that no details have been withheld from disclosure in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 221 of the judgment dated 15 February 2024.

The Court, thereby, directed the Election Commission of India to upload the details on receipt of the communication by SBI.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

Title: Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa & Ors.

Decided on: 09.08.2023

+ WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7383 OF 2023

CORAM: G. S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner is an advocate with extensive experience practicing in the High Court. The first respondent is the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), while the second respondent is an individual involved in ongoing litigation that was transferred from the High Court to the City Civil Court. The third respondent, added later, is the Bar Council of India. The case centres around an order issued on September 20, 2022, by an advocate member of the BCMG, referring a disciplinary matter for investigation. The petitioner was accused of professional misconduct by the complainant, who alleged that the petitioner identified certain annexures to an affidavit inaccurately. The petitioner, Ms. Geeta Shastri, was not the advocate-on-record but only identified the deponent of the affidavit.

Issues:

Whether the allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner hold merit?

Whether signing of an affidavit by the Petitioner implies her attesting to the accuracy of the affidavit’s contents?

Contentions:

Ms. Shastri contended that she had merely identified a deponent’s signature on an affidavit and that this did not translate to her attesting to the accuracy of the affidavit’s contents. She emphasized that she was not the advocate-on-record and therefore should not be held liable for the content of the affidavit. Ms. Shastri argued that the complainant’s interpretation would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a situation where advocates would be reluctant to identify signatures, thus undermining the legal process.

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that Ms. Shastri’s identification of the signature on the affidavit implied her endorsement of the accuracy of the affidavit’s content. Since Ms. Shastri identified the signature, she assumed personal responsibility for any false statements or inaccuracies in the affidavit. This extended to allegations of perjury, forgery, and other misconduct.

Decision:

The court rejected the complainant’s argument and ruled in favor of Ms. Shastri. The court held that an advocate’s identification of a signature on an affidavit does not translate to personal responsibility for the content of the affidavit. The court emphasized that advocates, in this context, are not attesting to the accuracy of the affidavit’s content, and their role is limited to identifying the signature. The court referred to Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which specifies that affidavits should be confined to facts that the deponent can personally prove.

The court also expressed concern about the increasing trend of litigants filing complaints against opposing counsel as a means of intimidation, which undermines the legal profession’s ethical standards and the fair administration of justice. The court highlighted the importance of protecting advocates from such unwarranted threats and pressures.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

The Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India to file an affidavit in order to fully effectuate its judgement

Bombay HC: Signing an affidavit by an advocate essentially implies attestation to the accuracy of its contents