The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, took a firm stand against the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. for making baseless allegations against the judiciary. The Corporation claimed that the Court had recorded a statement in its order that was never made by the lawyer representing them. The apex court sternly reprimanded the litigant and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed their dismay over the accusations.
"We are shocked to read the allegations made in the applications. The allegation suggests that we recorded a statement by the counsel, which, in reality, was never made. It is alarming to see such claims being made against the court, that too in the absence of the lawyers who were present on that day." – Supreme Court
Read Also:- SCAORA Submits Recommendations to SC on Guidelines for Advocates-on-Record and Senior Designation Process
The court strongly condemned this conduct and emphasized that such accusations directly question the credibility of the judiciary.
"This is an allegation directly against the court, that we recorded a statement that was never made. Such tendencies are unacceptable. Moreover, the advocates present that day have not come forward today." – Supreme Court
Given the severity of the accusations, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on the Corporation.
Case Background
The dispute arose over tariffs set by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission for renewable energy generators between April 1, 2004, and March 31, 2009. The Commission's decision was contested before the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which, in December 2012, ruled on the tariff and mandated a 12% interest rate on arrears, compounded quarterly.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Rape and Kidnapping, Citing Marriage and Children
The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. challenged this decision in a 2013 appeal before the Supreme Court. On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals after the involved parties agreed to modify the ruling, reducing the interest rate from 12% to 9%. The Court recorded in its order that the counsel for the appellants, including the Transmission Corporation, assured payment under the modified ruling within six weeks.
Subsequently, the Transmission Corporation filed two Miscellaneous Applications challenging the Supreme Court’s May 17, 2024, order.
During Monday’s hearing, the counsel for Telangana argued that following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the appeal’s cause title was amended. He stated that any statement made by the lawyer representing the Transmission Corporation could not bind Telangana, as a separate entity now existed for Telangana. He further asserted that the lawyer never made the statement recorded by the Court and was only representing Andhra Pradesh, as he did not possess a vakalatnama for Telangana.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Exemption from Surrender Admissible Only When Petitioner is Sentenced to Imprisonment
Justice Oka observed that the lawyer had appeared and made a statement on behalf of all appellants on May 17, 2024. However, the Corporation had now filed applications contradicting this.
The counsel for Andhra Pradesh contended that the lawyer had instructions to agree only to simple interest, not compound interest.
Justice Oka directly questioned the applicants:
"Are you alleging that the Court mistakenly recorded a statement that was never made? Who exactly appeared for the applicants on May 17, 2024?" – Justice Abhay S. Oka
There was disagreement among the lawyers present on Monday regarding whether the Advocate on Record for the Transmission Corporation had appeared that day.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Highlights FIR Omission as Critical Evidence Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act
At this juncture, the counsels for both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana requested the judges to dismiss the applications and not consider them as personal allegations against them.
"The question before us is – when the court places its trust in lawyers appearing before it and issues an order, should we now be forced to investigate who appeared for which appellant and whether the statement was actually made before us?"
The Court warned that if such allegations persisted, the only recourse would be to recall the May 17, 2024, order and restore the appeals. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed each applicant to pay a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.
Justice Oka, expressing deep concern, remarked:
"In my 21 years of working in the constitutional court, this is the first time such an allegation has been made against me – that I recorded a lawyer’s statement when he never made it. This is a sad state of affairs. Why should we tolerate such allegations at the end of my career? Hereafter, I will not trust any lawyer. I will take an affidavit from the client directly." – Justice Abhay S. Oka
The judge further emphasized that he did not wish to waste time investigating who had appeared that day.
"This is the worst allegation I have faced in my 22-year career." – Justice Abhay S. Oka
Case Details: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. And Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors. Diary No. 33638-2024
