The Allahabad High Court has ordered a detailed inquiry into serious allegations made during review proceedings after a litigant claimed that he had never authorised an advocate to represent him in an earlier writ petition. The Court also expressed concern over statements made during previous proceedings regarding the institution's election history and observed that the matter directly affects the administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The review application arose from an earlier writ petition disposed of on May 5, 2026, in which the Court had allowed the petitioners to file their submissions within 48 hours and directed the concerned authorities to take a final decision within four weeks, subject to there being no legal impediment.
The review applicant later challenged that order, alleging that a lawyer had appeared on his behalf without any valid Vakalatnama (authority to act) or instructions. He also disputed an earlier statement that the last undisputed election of the educational institution had taken place in 2009, asserting that no such election had been held.
Court's Observations
Justice Siddharth Nandan examined the record and noted that the advocate against whom the allegations were made had filed a personal affidavit stating that the applicant had personally approached his office, signed the Vakalatnama, and paid the legal fees through a relative before a caveat was filed. The advocate also placed previous cases on record to show that he had represented the same client since at least 2015.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed that such allegations, if false, have serious implications for the justice delivery system.
“The conduct... has direct repercussions on the administration of justice, since bar and bench being two wheels of the same chariot, works on mutual Trust.”
The Court also found that an earlier submission before it that the last undisputed election was held in 2009 did not appear to match the record. It referred to previous proceedings in which the 2009 election had itself been treated as doubtful and noted that the issue had already been the subject of litigation.
According to the Court, the earlier order of the Joint Director of Education treating the 2009 election as doubtful had attained finality, making the statement made before the Court questionable.
The bench observed:
“This Court finds that the statement... were adverse to the documents on record; but whether they were on purpose is to be examined.”
Court's Decision
Without deciding the merits of the review application, the High Court directed that records containing Vakalatnamas from several earlier cases involving the applicant be collected and placed before the Court in a sealed cover for comparison.
It also directed the applicant and another individual connected with the dispute to file personal affidavits regarding the execution of the Vakalatnama and remain personally present on the next date of hearing.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13, 2026, when the Court will continue examining the allegations.
Case Details
Case Title: Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and Another
Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 106 of 2026
Judge: Justice Siddharth Nandan
Decision Date: July 6, 2026
