In a shocking revelation that has raised serious concerns about procedural integrity, the Supreme Court of India was misled into passing a favorable verdict in a land dispute based on completely fabricated submissions. The case revolved around a purported compromise between parties—one of whom, it later turned out, had never even appeared in court or hired any legal representation.
The entire deception hinged on a carefully forged compromise agreement and the appearance of lawyers allegedly representing a respondent who was never actually informed about the case. The apex court quashed the decisions of both the Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court under the assumption that a mutual settlement had been reached.
The Truth Surfaces: A Son-in-law Spots the Fraud
The plot unraveled when the real respondent’s son-in-law stumbled upon the Supreme Court’s judgment online—months after the verdict had been delivered. Alarmed, the family immediately consulted advocates Gyanant Singh and Abhisek Rai, who approached the court seeking redressal.
The deception was layered: a caveat was filed in the fake respondent’s name to prevent the court from issuing a notice, effectively keeping the actual party in the dark. Only upon learning of the fraudulent order did the real respondent come forward and clarify that he had never agreed to any compromise nor authorized anyone to appear on his behalf.
Legal Fallout: Supreme Court Orders Investigation, FIR
Angered by the deliberate attempt to subvert justice, a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi condemned the act in strong terms. “The court cannot be taken for a ride,” they said, directing the Supreme Court registry to investigate and submit a report within three weeks. They also did not rule out the possibility of an FIR against those involved.
ALSO READ: FCRF Launches Campus Ambassador Program to Empower India’s Next-Gen Cyber Defenders
The December order that quashed lower court verdicts relied heavily on a compromise agreement allegedly filed by lawyers on both sides. However, Advocate-on-Record JM Khanna—listed in court documents as having appeared for the respondent—later informed the bench that he hadn’t practiced in years. His daughter Shefali Khanna, also named, denied ever appearing in court or handling the matter.
The respondent, in a powerful submission, asserted, “The petitioner has committed a fraud upon this court. If not rectified, it will embolden other mala fide litigants to continue their deceitful practices.”
Acknowledging the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment and ordered a full-fledged inquiry into how such a calculated and systematic fraud bypassed all judicial safeguards.
