Whether court should impose heavy costs if false or misleading affidavit is filed?

 On a consideration of the Report, the High Court took the view that Sciemed had given a false affidavit in this Court to the effect that the work was near completion. In this view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sciemed and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.

21. At this stage, it is important to mention that Sciemed through its proprietor Shailendra Prasad Singh son of Rameshwar Prasad Singh, had filed an affidavit on or about 10th July, 2008 in the High Court in which it was explained that the statement made in this Court on affidavit was because the deponent was of the view that the installation of the complete system of gas pipeline is one part of the award and installation of liquid oxygen tank is a separate work. It was stated that the affidavit filed in this Court was due to some misconception and was not with a view to mislead this Court. In other words, the deponent sought to justify his affidavit in this Court notwithstanding the Report of the learned advocate. The deponent after giving the above explanation, tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the High Court for the statement regarding the near completion of the project.

22. The High Court did not accept the apology given by the proprietor of Sciemed and, therefore, imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on Sciemed.

Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie case of "deliberate falsehood" on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.

32. On the material before us and the material considered by the High Court, we are satisfied that the imposition of costs by the High Court was justified. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The petition is dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29125 of 2008

Decided On: 11.01.2016

 Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: (2016) 3 SCC 70

Print Page

Whether citing of overruled caselaw before court amounts to contempt of court?

The judgments of the High Court would bind the trial courts. If
an unnecessary reference to a judicial precedent or erroneous
submission in law is made, the judge considering the matter would
reject the reliance thereon or the submission made. However,
certainly reference to a judicial precedent cannot be termed a
contumacious act.
61. There is even an instance of the court considering the question
as to whether citing overruled precedent would amount to contempt
was considered by a ld. Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the pronouncement reported at AIR 2001 P&H 49 Balbir
Singh Wasu v. Parbhandak Committee Gurudwara Sahib . It was
held thus:
"25. It was further submitted that the plaintiff's counsel
committed contempt of the trial Court as well as that of the
appellate Court and he committed contempt of this court also
by relying on AIR 1954 Pb. 125 which was overruled in AIR
1984 P&H 439. I do not think any contempt was committed by
the plaintiff if he cited AIR 1954 Pb. 125. After going through
both the judgments, the court could come to know that AIR
1954 Pb. 125 had been over-ruled in AIR 1984 P&H 439.
Even otherwise no contempt is made out if the plaintiff did not
intend duping the court. He had relied upon 1990 Civil Court
Cases 406 in which AIR 1984 P&H 439 had been relied upon.
By going through AIR 1984 P&H 439, the court would have
known that AIR 1954 Pb. 125 had been overruled. No
contempt was thus committed by the plaintiff/counsel."
Therefore, unless the intention was to mislead the court, erroneous
citing of an overruled judgment may not ipso facto and per se be
considered contumacious.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Date of decision : 9th March, 2017
 CCP(REF)No.3/2016
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .
v
DSP JAYANT KASHMIRI & ORS
CORAM:
 MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
 MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

Print Page

Show cause notice issued to Ministry of Environment and Forests for rendering “false and misleading” information in response to an RTI application

 While coming down heavily upon Ministry of Environment and Forests for rendering “false and misleading” information in response to an RTI application seeking information on the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellphone towers on human beings, CIC issued a show cause to the Ministry asking why maximum penalty should not be imposed for false and misleading information on such a vital issue of public importance. The said order of the Commission came upon an RTI application filed by a person who sought information in relation to World Health Organization (WHO) press release –“ Radio frequency Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) as possible carcinogenic” to humans based on increased risks for glioma, a malignant type brain cancer and also if any action has been taken by the Ministry in this regard. The applicant also sought to know if Ministry has conducted any study to gather data of Electro Magnetic Fields to measure the harmful biological effects of EMF on human beings and if it has declared radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a source of Air pollution. The Ministry, in response to his query had submitted that it had not undertaken or sponsored any study to gather data to measure the alleged harmful biological effects of EMF on human beings from Cell phone tower. However, during the proceedings before CIC, it was found that an inter-ministerial group was constituted by Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunication in 2010, which had reported that EMF can have adverse effects on humans and had also suggested that cellphone towers not be installed near schools, residential colonies and hospitals. While reprimanding the officials of Ministry for providing false information, Commission noted, “The Commission found that the answer of the CPIO in response to this RTI request is false and misleading. They said a) there is no study, but there is study, b) there is no adverse impact on human beings, but the report confirmed adverse impact of EMF, c) were not aware of, but they knew or presumed to have known the contents of both reports by WHO and Inter-Ministerial Group, as those reports were placed on their official website”. “The commission is surprised that the respondent authority knew that the report was submitted by the inter-ministerial group, but officers neither cared to submit the copy of the report nor read it. The commission could trace the report from the websites of department of telecommunication and DDA", noted CIC and issued a show cause notice upon the Ministry in the matter.
Suresh Chander Gupta v. Ministry of Environment & Forests,  decided on February 20, 2015)
Read full judgment here;click here

Print Page