LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) must verify the identity of a client signing a Vakalatnama, and what are the implications of not doing so.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Suresh Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Judgment Date: May 13, 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 509
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J.
Can a court recall an order if it is discovered that a party was not properly represented? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where an individual claimed that his signature on a legal document was forged. This case highlights the crucial role of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) in verifying the authenticity of legal documents and ensuring proper representation of their clients. The court examined the duties of AORs when filing a Vakalatnama (a document authorizing a lawyer to act for a client) and the consequences of non-compliance.
Case Background
The case originated from a criminal appeal where the Sessions Court convicted several individuals, including Siya Ram, under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing the accused to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000 each. Siya Ram, along with four others, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Initially, the Supreme Court rejected Siya Ram’s application for exemption from surrendering. When he failed to surrender, the SLP was dismissed concerning him. Subsequently, the SLP was dismissed for the other petitioners as well. Siya Ram was then taken into custody. Later, Siya Ram, through a new advocate, filed another SLP against the same judgment. The Registry of the Supreme Court noted that Siya Ram had previously filed an SLP with the other petitioners. Siya Ram claimed that he had not filed the previous SLP and that his signature on the Vakalatnama was forged, as he is an illiterate person and uses his thumb impression.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 26, 2018 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad scales down the offence to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| April 29, 2019 | Supreme Court rejects application for exemption from surrendering. |
| July 15, 2019 | Supreme Court grants two weeks to surrender, failing which the SLP would be dismissed for non-prosecution. |
| August 23, 2019 | Special Leave Petition dismissed for other petitioners. |
| October 4, 2019 | Siya Ram taken into custody. |
| January 18, 2021 | Siya Ram’s advocate sends a letter to the Superintendent of Jail at Etawah, requesting an inquiry. |
| January 27, 2021 | Superintendent of Jail at Etawah informs that Siya Ram had not filed the SLP with other petitioners. |
| June 30, 2021 | Siya Ram’s advocate inspects the file and notes that the signature on the Vakalatnama is in Hindi and not a thumb impression. |
| January 7, 2022 | Supreme Court directs the Registry to inquire into the matter. |
| January 29, 2022 | Inquiry Officer submits report. |
| April 8, 2022 | Supreme Court seeks assistance of the counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh. |
| May 4, 2022 | Jail Superintendent of District Jail at Ghaziabad files an affidavit. |
| May 13, 2022 | Supreme Court disposes of the Miscellaneous Application. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Rule 7 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which outlines the duties of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) when filing a Vakalatnama. The relevant clauses are:
-
Rule 7(a): An advocate-on-record, upon filing a memorandum of appearance with a duly executed Vakalatnama, is entitled to act and plead for the party, conduct proceedings, and deposit/receive money on behalf of the party.
-
Rule 7(b):
-
(i) If the Vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the AOR, the AOR must certify that it was executed in their presence.
-
(ii) If the AOR accepts a Vakalatnama already executed before a Notary or advocate, the AOR must endorse that they have verified the due execution of the Vakalatnama.
-
The Court emphasized that compliance with Rule 7(b) is not a mere formality but a crucial duty of the AOR to ensure the authenticity of the Vakalatnama and the proper representation of the client.
Arguments
Applicant’s Submissions:
- Siya Ram contended that he did not file the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019.
- He claimed that he is an illiterate person and always uses his thumb impression instead of a signature.
- He pointed out that the Vakalatnama in the said SLP bore a signature in Hindi, not his thumb impression.
- He submitted that the Vakalatnama in his subsequent SLP and the custody certificate bore his thumb impression.
Advocate-on-Record’s (AOR) Submissions:
- The AOR stated that the petitioners had approached him through a local advocate at Allahabad.
- He claimed that all petitioners, including Siya Ram, visited his office and signed the Vakalatnama in his presence.
- He stated that Siya Ram signed the affidavit in support of the Special Leave Petition as he was the first petitioner.
The Court noted that the AOR did not verify the identity of the petitioners through documents like Aadhaar or PAN cards, nor did he have the affidavit affirmed by a Notary Public. The AOR also did not know the petitioners personally or have anyone introduce them to him.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Applicant’s Submission: He did not file the SLP No. 7628/2019 |
|
| AOR’s Submission: Petitioners signed Vakalatnama in his presence |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019 was filed by the applicant, Siya Ram, and whether the Vakalatnama was duly executed by him.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019 was filed by the applicant, Siya Ram, and whether the Vakalatnama was duly executed by him. | The Court held that the SLP was not filed by Siya Ram, and the Vakalatnama was not duly executed by him. |
|
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 7 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this rule to emphasize the duties of an AOR when filing a Vakalatnama, specifically the requirement to verify the identity of the client. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Applicant’s submission that he did not sign the Vakalatnama and did not file the SLP | Accepted. The Court found that the applicant’s claim was valid, given his illiteracy and the discrepancies in the signatures. |
| AOR’s submission that the petitioners signed the Vakalatnama in his presence | Rejected. The Court found that the AOR did not verify the identity of the petitioners and did not comply with the rules. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Rule 7 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to emphasize the duties of an AOR when filing a Vakalatnama, specifically the requirement to verify the identity of the client. The court held that the AOR did not comply with the requirements of the said rule.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The fact that the applicant was an illiterate person who always used his thumb impression, and the Vakalatnama bore a signature.
- The failure of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) to verify the identity of the applicant through proper documents.
- The AOR’s non-compliance with Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Applicant’s Illiteracy and Signature Discrepancy | 40% |
| AOR’s Failure to Verify Identity | 35% |
| Non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules | 25% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual discrepancies and legal non-compliance, with a slightly higher emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s contention that he did not sign the Vakalatnama in the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019 and that he did not sign the affidavit in support thereof.
The Court held that the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019 was not filed by the applicant, and the same shall be treated as a Special Leave Petition filed only by the second to fifth petitioners.
The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, stating, “Compliance with Clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules is very important. It is not an empty formality and therefore, it is the duty of AORs to ensure that due compliance is made with the said requirement.”
The Court also noted, “If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Adhaar or PAN card.”
The Court further stated, “The Vakalatnama of the applicant, in this case, did not bear certification as required by sub-clauses (i) or (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 7 of the said Rules.”
The Court clarified that while the applicant’s claim was accepted, the action of taking the applicant into custody could not be nullified.
Key Takeaways
- Advocates-on-Record (AORs) must verify the identity of their clients when they sign a Vakalatnama.
- If the Vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the AOR, they must certify that it was executed in their presence.
- If the Vakalatnama is executed before a Notary or advocate, the AOR must endorse that they have verified its due execution.
- Non-compliance with Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is a serious matter and not a mere formality.
- The judgment highlights the importance of due diligence by AORs to prevent fraudulent filings and ensure proper representation of clients.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to issue a circular inviting the attention of the Advocates-on-Record to this order and to the requirement of making compliance with clause (b) of Rule 7 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no discussion on any specific amendment in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) have a duty to verify the identity of their clients when they sign a Vakalatnama, and they must comply with Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. This judgment reinforces the importance of due diligence by AORs and clarifies their responsibilities in ensuring the authenticity of legal documents and proper representation of clients. This judgment does not change any previous positions of law, but rather emphasizes the existing rules and their importance.
Conclusion
In Suresh Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified the duties of Advocates-on-Record (AORs) regarding the verification of Vakalatnamas. The Court held that an AOR must verify the identity of the client signing the Vakalatnama, either by witnessing the signature or by ensuring proper endorsement of a previously executed Vakalatnama. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is a serious matter and not a mere formality. This judgment underscores the importance of due diligence by AORs to prevent fraudulent filings and ensure proper representation of clients.