The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a litigant for criminal contempt after he was found guilty of forging a High Court order. The forged order was used to obtain a stay on the execution of a decree in a property and rent recovery case.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. The appellant had forged three interim orders, falsely presenting them as authentic decisions from the Madras High Court. Shockingly, even the Civil Revision Petition (CRP) numbers mentioned in the documents were fictitious.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Judiciary Can Direct Executive to Audit Law Implementation If Objectives Not Met
An investigation revealed that no such CRPs were ever filed in the Madras High Court. Moreover, the bench claimed to have issued the interim orders was never assigned to hear CRPs at all. The Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) further confirmed that the forged orders had discrepancies in signatures, seals, and formatting when compared with genuine High Court documents.
Recognizing the act as a grave challenge to the judicial system, the Madras High Court had sentenced the appellant to six months' imprisonment for contempt of court.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Stamp Vendors Performing Public Duty Are Public Servants Under Corruption Law
The appellant then challenged this sentence before the Supreme Court. However, the Apex Court upheld the conviction after finding no error in the High Court’s findings.
“Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record. Therefore, the charge of contempt is fully proved against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.” — Supreme Court (Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra)
The appellant had argued that the case lacked evidence to prove charges “beyond reasonable doubt.” However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, highlighting the clear and conclusive evidence including forensic reports and confessional statements made by the appellant and others involved.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds High Court's View on Limitation in Election Petition under RP Act
“It is argued that the charge having not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellants cannot be punished. However, the present is a case where the High Court has initiated suo motu contempt on proved and admitted facts that C3 produced fake interim orders of the High Court and the same were prepared by C4 & C7. Despite observation by the High Court, we are of the view that present is a case where it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the present appellants/contemnors have either used or created fake High Court interim orders.” — Supreme Court
While affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court showed leniency by reducing the sentence from six months to one month, considering the circumstances.
This case serves as a strong reminder of the serious consequences of tampering with judicial records. The Court made it clear that forging court documents is not just illegal—it directly attacks the credibility and authority of the judicial system.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Subhodh Patil, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Ms. Stuti Wason, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Tiwari, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv. Mr. P. V. K. Deivendran, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S., AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K, Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv. Mr. K. M. Kalidharun, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR
Case Title: SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN VERSUS HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
