A Calculated Legal Adventure Became a Spectacular Misadventure.
Suppression of material facts in proceedings before a court — particularly in affidavits and pleadings — attracts the legal principle of suppressio veri suggesti falsi, which means that the suppression of truth is equivalent in law to the suggestion of falsehood.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that such suppression amounts to gross abuse of the process of court. Crucially, responsibility does not rest with the deponent alone — the advocate drafting such pleadings, the Senior Counsel settling the draft, and the Senior Counsel representing the case before the court are equally liable for action under contempt and perjury, and for payment of heavy costs to the opposite party. Beyond contempt and perjury, such conduct also exposes the concerned advocates to disciplinary action by the Bar Council for professional misconduct — a consequence that strikes at their very licence to practise. Even the designation of senior counsel can be withdrawn by the Courtas done in R. K. Anand’s case. In Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 779, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹5 crore and ordered prosecution for perjury — a ruling that leaves no room for ambiguity as to the gravity with which the Supreme Court treats suppression of material facts.
[See also:- Badhuvan Kunhi v. K.M. Abdulla, MANU/KE/0828/2016;, E.S. Reddi , T.V. Choudhary, In re, (1987) 3 SCC 258; Prominant Hotels 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11910; Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. ICI India Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Born 74 ]
Background and Context
Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire and a US citizen, approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Central Government’s decision dated April 2, 2026 to reject his application for conversion of his Person of Indian Origin (PIO) status to Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card.
The Initial Relief — Obtained on Suppressed Foundations
On May 12, 2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court quashed the Central Government’s communication rejecting Siddharth Varadarajan’s OCI application, finding it bereft of reasons. The very next day, on May 13, the Court further directed authorities to consider his application for a “return visa” to enable travel to Estonia between May 14 and 19 for a professional commitment.
What the Court did not know — because it was never told — was that Varadarajan was a person who had been directed to surrender his passport pursuant to conditions imposed by the Allahabad High Court while granting him anticipatory bail in a criminal case in 2020. That court had explicitly prohibited him from travelling abroad without prior permission from the trial court concerned. A person bound by such conditions approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief that would directly and flagrantly circumvent those very conditions — without breathing a word about them.
This was not an oversight. This was a calculated suppression of a binding judicial order to obtain relief that could never have been granted had the full picture been placed before the court. There is nothing accidental about suppressing a court order whose very existence would have defeated the relief being sought. The suppression was not incidental to the petition — it was foundational to its success.
Suppression pointed out by the State :-
During a subsequent hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that certain “disconcerting material” had surfaced after the previous hearing. Sharma argued that an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2020 had been “conveniently suppressed” by Varadarajan.
The Allahabad High Court order had granted Varadarajan anticipatory bail in a criminal case subject to certain conditions — including surrendering his passport and not travelling abroad without prior permission from the trial court concerned. This condition was not disclosed when Varadarajan challenged the Ministry of Home Affairs’ decision rejecting his OCI application.
The Court’s Findings — Prima Facie Guilt Recorded
Justice Kaurav recalled the May 12 and May 13 orders in their entirety. The Court noted that a petitioner is always required to approach with clean hands and full disclosure, and that Varadarajan had failed entirely to disclose the existence of the 2020 Allahabad High Court order and its binding conditions. The Court declared Varadarajan prima facie guilty of suppressing material facts and warned that the non-disclosure would “entail very serious consequences.”
The legal import of this finding cannot be understated. A prima facie finding of suppression by the Court itself — recorded in an order — is not a preliminary observation to be brushed aside. It is a judicial determination that the foundation upon which relief was obtained was fraudulent. It constitutes fraud upon the court and upon the opposite party, attracting the principle of suppressio veri suggestio falsi — suppression of truth is, in law, equivalent to suggestion of falsehood.
The “Memory Loss” Defence — A Legal Non-Starter
When the suppression was exposed, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the omission was non-intentional — that the relevant facts had simply “skipped her mind.” This characterisation deserves scrutiny.
We are not speaking of a forgotten date or a misremembered name. We are speaking of a High Court order obtained by the petitioner himself — an order under which he surrendered his passport and accepted conditions restricting his international travel. That a person who physically surrendered his passport pursuant to a court order could subsequently forget the existence of that very order when approaching another High Court for travel relief strains every boundary of credulity.
The “memory loss” explanation is not a defence — it is an aggravation. It asks the court to accept that a litigant, represented by Senior Counsel, filed a detailed petition challenging the rejection of his OCI application and sought specific travel relief to Estonia, all without once recalling that he had surrendered his passport under judicial compulsion. The implausibility of this explanation is self-evident.
Affidavit of apology after exposure of suppression and Current Status
In an affidavit filed on May 22, 2026, Varadarajan acknowledged the existence of the Allahabad High Court order and explained the circumstances under which the omission occurred. On May 25, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted time to the Centre to respond to this affidavit. The matter is now listed on July 15, 2026. An apology extracted by exposure is not remorse — it is damage control. The Supreme Court has consistently and unambiguously held that a belated apology tendered only after suppression is uncovered carries no evidentiary value, no mitigating weight, and no legal consequence capable of shielding the deponent from liability for perjury and contempt.
The Underlying Criminal Case where condition were imposed.
In 2021, an FIR was lodged by a Sub-Inspector against certain alleged miscreants, including a journalist of The Wire and The Wire itself, for making and posting a video clip of the demolition. An FIR was lodged against Siddharth Varadarajan, as well as the cameraman and anchor of The Wire, under Sections 153, 153-A, 505(1)(b), 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Barabanki District Magistrate, Adarsh Singh, claimed that the video falsely showed that the police threw religious scriptures of a community into a river after the demolition, stating that “such an incident did not happen.” The Barabanki District Magistrate further stated: “The news portal, The Wire, shared a video documentary on their Twitter handle on June 23 that makes baseless and false statements. With misinformation like this, The Wire is trying to spread animosity in society and disturbing communal harmony.” The Critical Link — Anticipatory Bail Conditions Suppressed Before Delhi High Court
It is in the context of this very criminal case — FIR No. 231 of 2021, Barabanki — that the Allahabad High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to Varadarajan, imposed binding conditions including surrender of passport and prohibition on travelling abroad without prior permission of the trial court. It was precisely these conditions, flowing directly from this criminal case, that Varadarajan failed to disclose before the Delhi High Court while seeking relief in his OCI card application — which relief directly involved and was connected to his ability to travel internationally. The Delhi High Court’s finding of prima facie suppression of material facts therefore assumes even greater significance when viewed against the backdrop that the suppressed conditions were imposed in a criminal case where Varadarajan himself stands accused of propagating false information through his media platform — a matter directly relevant to his professional credibility and his organisation’s journalistic standards.
Can Apology Erase Alleged Falsehood? Supreme Court Judgments Suggest Otherwise Where apology is offered when opposite party exposed the suppression and an attempt to misled the court.
Legal experts point out that Indian courts have repeatedly distinguished between an innocent mistake and an alleged attempt to secure favourable orders through suppression or misleading statements. Where a person does not voluntarily correct the record but tenders an apology only after contradiction by the State or exposure of facts, such apology may not automatically absolve the misconduct.
The Supreme Court has observed in various contexts that apologies offered only after wrongdoing stands exposed often lack bona fides and may amount to an attempt to avoid consequences after a litigant’s “adventure has turned into misadventure.” Courts have emphasized that remorse shown after detection is materially different from voluntary disclosure before exposure.
Judicial precedents consistently hold that litigants approaching courts are under a duty of complete candour. Suppression of material facts, half-truths, and selective disclosure intended to obtain favourable orders have been treated seriously under the principle of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi—suppression of truth amounts to suggestion of falsehood.
Legal commentators further note that offences relating to false evidence or false declarations before courts are traditionally treated as offences against administration of justice itself. The broader concern raised is that if concealment followed by apology becomes sufficient to avoid accountability, it risks encouraging misuse of judicial process. Courts have repeatedly stressed that maintaining the purity of judicial proceedings is essential to preserving public confidence in the rule of law.
No Discretion to Condone Suppression — Varadarajan’s Belated Apology is Inadmissible in Law and Prosecution for Perjury is Mandated
The submission that Varadarajan’s conduct deserves to be overlooked or forgiven on account of the apology tendered by him is, with respect, wholly untenable in law and directly contrary to the binding pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The law on this point is unambiguous, consistent and admits of no exception — a court has no discretion to pardon, condone or overlook suppression of material facts where the suppression was deliberate, where it resulted in a favourable order being obtained, and where the apology was tendered only after the suppression was exposed by the opposite party and not on the voluntary, suo motu initiative of the person guilty of suppression.
The Nature and Character of the Apology — Adventure Converted into Misadventure
It is well settled in law that there exists a fundamental and legally significant distinction between two categories of conduct — first, where a litigant discovers his own error, voluntarily brings it to the court’s attention and corrects the record before any adverse consequence ensues; and second, where a litigant makes a calculated suppression, obtains a favourable order on the basis of that suppression, is subsequently exposed by the opposing party, and only then tenders an apology. Varadarajan’s case falls squarely and unambiguously within the second category. He did not voluntarily disclose the Allahabad High Court’s bail conditions at any stage of the proceedings. He did not bring them to the court’s notice when filing the writ petition. He did not disclose them when obtaining the order dated May 12, 2026. He did not disclose them when obtaining the travel permission on May 13, 2026. The suppression was exposed only when the Additional Solicitor General placed the material before the court. It was only at that point — when the adventure of suppression had been irreversibly converted into a misadventure — that an apology was tendered.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively laid down that such post-exposure apologies are not admissible in law as a defence or as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to discharge the offender or to foreclose action by the court. An apology tendered only upon being caught does not demonstrate remorse — it demonstrates calculation. It is not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing — it is an attempt to escape the consequences of wrongdoing once escape through concealment is no longer possible. The law does not reward such conduct with absolution.
The Principle of Suppressio Veri Suggesti Falsi — Suppression is Equivalent to Filing a False Affidavit
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has firmly established that suppression of material facts in proceedings before a court — particularly in affidavits and pleadings — attracts the legal principle of suppressio veri suggesti falsi, which means that the suppression of truth is equivalent in law to the suggestion of falsehood. A litigant who withholds a material fact from the court does not merely omit something — he actively creates a distorted, incomplete and false picture before the court. He misleads the court not by stating what is false but by concealing what is true. The resulting impression conveyed to the court is as false and as deliberately manufactured as if he had made an outright false statement in his affidavit. The law treats both with equal severity.
In the present case, Varadarajan filed pleadings before the Delhi High Court seeking relief directly connected with his ability to travel internationally, while deliberately withholding the existence of a binding Allahabad High Court order that expressly prohibited him from doing so without prior permission. The suppression was not peripheral or incidental — it went to the very heart of the relief sought. The court was thus misled into passing orders granting him precisely that which he was legally prohibited from obtaining. This is a textbook application of suppressio veri suggesti falsi — and the law mandates that it be treated as equivalent to the filing of a false affidavit.
Prosecution for Perjury is Mandatory — The Court Has No Discretion to Ignore or Condone
The offences of perjury and filing false affidavits — as codified under Sections 191, 192, 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code and their corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — are non-compoundable offences. They cannot be settled between parties. They cannot be waived by the court. They cannot be extinguished by an apology, however elaborate or seemingly sincere. The non-compoundable character of these offences places them beyond the discretion of the presiding judge — a judge who ignores perjury or suppression of material facts on the basis of an apology does not exercise judicial discretion. He exceeds it. He acts contrary to the mandatory direction of the law.
This position is settled in following cases :-
- ABCD v. Union of India, (2020) 2 SCC 52
- Sundar v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310,
- Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432,
- Samsun Arthur v. Quinne Logistic, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 403,
- Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 779,
- Badhuvan Kunhi v. K.M. Abdulla, MANU/KE/0828/2016;,
- S. Reddi , T.V. Choudhary, In re, (1987) 3 SCC 258;
- Prominant Hotels 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11910;
- Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. ICI India Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Born 74
- in Sundar V/s. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: suppression of material facts intended to mislead the Court constitutes gross contempt, and the Court would be failing in its duty if it does not initiate contempt proceedings against such dishonest people.
It is ruled as under: –
“87. The non-disclosure of material facts amounts to misleading this Court and to an attempt at interfering with the administration of justice. In the Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No 3 of 2021 titled In Re: Perry Kansagra, this Court discussed the line of precedent of this Court dealing with tendering of affidavits and undertakings containing false statements or suppressing/concealing material facts amounting to contempt of court:
“15. It is thus well settled that a person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. The extracted portion above clearly shows that in such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court”
- Separately, a notice is required to be issued to the Inspector of Police, Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore District, State of Tamil Nadu to offer an explanation as to why action should not be taken for the filing of the affidavit dated 26 September 2021. In this case, prima facie, material information regarding the conduct of the petitioner in the prison was concealed from this Court. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to register the matter as a suo motu proceeding for contempt of court.”
- That in ABCD Vs Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52 it is ruled as under;
“17. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12
SCC 481] it was observed: (SCC p. 493, para 39)
“39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [R. v. General Commissioners for Purposes of Income Tax Acts For District of Kensington, ex p Princess Edmond De Polignac, (1917) 1 KB 486 ] is kept in mind,an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.”
- In the case of Samsun Arthur V/s. Quinne Logistic 2015 SCC OnLineHyd 403, has ruled that the act of petitioner therein in suppressing the relevant material facts is an offence of perjury it is ruled as under ;
“52. If the aforesaid submissions of Sri. S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel, were to merit acceptance, it would then mean that relevant facts have been deliberately suppressed from the Company Court. If a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and willfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding. (Naraindas v. The Government of Madhya Pradesh; Afzal v. State of Haryana; Sri.V. Satyanarayana Rao v. State of A.P; S.R. Ramaraj v. Special Court,
Bombay; V. Satyanarayana Rao6). “Suppressioveri”, i.e., the suppression of relevant and material facts is as bad as Suggestio falsi i.e., a false representation deliberately made. Both are intended to dilute-one by inaction and the other by action.
“Suppressio veri Suggestio falsi;-suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false. (Black's Law Dictionary with pronounciations-Sixth edition). A false statement willfully and deliberately made, and a suppression of a relevant and material fact, interfere with the due course of justice and obstruct the administration of justice. (V. Satyanarayana Rao).
- There is no justification in the request, made on behalf of the appellants, that the offences be compounded. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice. Unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice. (Advocate General State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries; V. Satyanarayana Rao). In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or, knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by recourse to misrepresentation, and conceals material facts, he does so at his own risk. Such a party must be ready to take the consequences that follow. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity in the administration of justice. (Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab). As a Application containing misleading and inaccurate statements, if filed to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, the litigant should not be dealt with lightly. A litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts. (ManoharLal v. Ugrasen; Tilokchand and Motichand v. H.B. Munshi). Whenever the court comes to the conclusion that its process is being abused, it would be justified in refusing to proceed further. This rule has been evolved out of the need for courts to deter a litigant from abusing its process by deceit. (Manohar Lal16; State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.; Sabia Khan v. State of U.P.; Abdul Rahman v. PrasonyBai; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.)). It is the duty of the High Court to ensure that its judicial process is not abused, and its order does not become an instrument or aid to overreach the adversary. (M.V. VenkataramanaBhat v. Returning Officer and Tahsildar). Every person invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must state the truth, be it in the pleadings, affidavits or evidence. The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details which inspire confidence and credibility. (A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nand Havana Paripalanai Sangam Represented by its President).
It is the duty of the Court, once false averment of facts are discovered, to take appropriate steps to ensure that no one derives any benefit or advantage by abusing the legal process. Fraudulent and dishonest litigants must be discouraged. (A. Shanmugam). It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process. (A. Shanmugam).
- Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and confer benefit to the person who has made a misrepresentation. (District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran; Vice Chairman, KendriyaVidyalayaSangathan v. GirdharilalYadav; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Company; Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar; and Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy). A person, whose case is based on falsehood, can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs.). Grave allegations are levelled against the appellants herein of having deliberately and consciously made false statements on oath, of having suppressed material facts, and to have misled the Company Court into passing an order appointing a provisional liquidator and, thereafter, into passing an order of winding up. These allegations, if true, would mean that the process of the Court has been abused. It is therefore expedient, in the interest of justice, that the matter is enquired into and action is taken by lodging a complaint before the Magistrate. Compounding offences, where litigants are alleged to have abused the process of Court, may not be justified. We find no merit in the submission of Sri. S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel, that the offences, alleged to have been committed by the appellants, should be compounded.
- Viewed from any angle the order of the Learned Company Judge, in directing the Registrar (Judicial) to depute an officer, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, to file a complaint under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191, 193 and 209 IPC against the appellants herein before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Hyderabad, is in accordance with law and does not necessitate interference.
We reiterate that the Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, shall consider the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made either in this order or in the order under appeal. Both the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.”
- In the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432 it is ruled as under;
“ 1. Leave granted. This is another case in which an effort has been made to pollute the stream of administration of justice.
“7. In a recent matter, this Court again came across a litigant who had tried to overreach the Court by concealing material facts in Saumya Chaurasia v. Enforcement Directorates. It was a case where the appellant before this Court had challenged the order passed by the High Court rejecting his bail application. He was accused of committing various crimes under the Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. His bail application was rejected by the High Court on 23-6-20237. In the pleadings before this Court, it was mentioned that the High Court had committed gross error in not considering the charge-sheet dated 8-6- 2023 and the cognizance order dated 16-6-2023, which clearly suggested that there was an error apparent on the fact of it. The fact which was available on record was that an order in the bail application was reserved by the High Court on 17-4- 20232 and pronounced on 23-6-20237. Having some suspicion, this Court directed the appellant to file an affidavit to clarify the aforesaid position. There was no specific reply given to the aforesaid query to the Court. Rather vague statements were made. Considering the facts available, this Court observed that there was a bold attempt by and on behalf of the appellant therein to misrepresent the facts for challenging the order impugned therein, regarding the conduct of the parties and the counsel, this Court made the following observations: (Saumya Chaurasia case, SCC para 13)
“13. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.”
(emphasis supplied)
- 3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL² it was observed by this Court:
(SCC p. 493, para 39)
“39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
- In Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash, this Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts before the Court, observed that “court is not a laboratory where children come to play”, and opined as under: (SCC p. 208, paras 19-20)
“19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court discharging the respondent-accused is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the Revisional Court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Anyone who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud upon the court, and the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the Revisional Court. It can be stated with certitude that the respondent-accused tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum.
- The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle “when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse”. However, as the order has been obtained by practising fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand.”
(emphasis supplied)
- It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is “satya” (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so Intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that:”Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that’s why most people prefer telling lies.”
