Supreme Court stays action against lawyers who fudged award copy

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed an Allahabad High Court order that had directed criminal proceedings and disciplinary action against two advocates for allegedly filing a manipulated land acquisition award. The High…

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed an Allahabad High Court order that had directed criminal proceedings and disciplinary action against two advocates for allegedly filing a manipulated land acquisition award. The High Court had found that advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra deliberately altered the award to show a higher rate of interest, securing monetary benefits for their client.

Supreme Court stays action against lawyers who fudged award copy

A bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar also stayed the direction to lodge complaints with the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to cancel the lawyers' licences. The interim order came on a petition by Shiv Kant Mishra, one of the accused advocates. The Supreme Court will hear the matter next on October 12.

The Allahabad High Court had on July 30 ruled that the advocates' conduct prima facie amounted to perjury under Section 199 of the IPC. It had directed an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC. The case stems from a review petition by the Bareilly Development Authority, which discovered that a typed copy of the award attached to the landowners' petition claimed interest at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter, while the original award only said interest would be paid 'as per rules'.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The case highlights the narrow line between zealous representation and misconduct in land acquisition litigation. The Allahabad High Court's strong language, questioning whether the profession is still seen as noble, reflects a growing judicial impatience with document manipulation. The key issue for the Supreme Court is whether the lawyers' act was a deliberate fraud or an error in copying the award. If the stay is made permanent, it may deter High Courts from ordering criminal action against advocates without clearer evidence. The next hearing on October 12 will signal how seriously the top court views this conduct.


Source: barandbench.com

This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.

Ask their opinion on this story
They have read this article, our coverage, and the web.
AI simulations of historical figures. Responses are generated from the historical record, not authentic statements.

0 Votes: 0 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes (0 Points)

Share your opinion

Loading Next Post...
Search Trending
Ask their opinion
Loading

Signing-in 3 seconds...

Signing-up 3 seconds...

All fields are required.