The Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended an order from the Allahabad High Court that called for criminal and disciplinary proceedings against two lawyers accused of submitting a falsified land acquisition award. This document purportedly contained a higher rate of interest than the original, raising serious allegations of misconduct.
In the case titled Shiv Kumar Mishra v. Bareilly Development Authority, the Supreme Court bench, composed of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, issued an interim order in response to a petition by advocate Shiv Kant Mishra. The petition challenges the High Court’s directive for lodging complaints with the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to revoke the lawyers’ licenses. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case again on October 12.
Background of the Case
On July 30, a division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra at the Allahabad High Court found that lawyers Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra had deliberately altered the award’s contents to secure financial gains for their client. The High Court ruled that such conduct prima facie constituted perjury under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for submitting false evidence.
The High Court directed the Registrar General to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and to file a perjury complaint with the appropriate magistrate. Furthermore, the Registrar General was instructed to file complaints with the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to consider canceling the lawyers’ licenses due to their ‘unpardonable conduct.’
High Court’s Observations
The Allahabad High Court made strong remarks about the legal profession, suggesting that individuals are compelled to approach courts due to a lack of alternatives, rather than any perceived nobility in the profession. The court said, “It is often said that the profession of advocacy is a noble profession; however, a deep introspection is required by the bar whether anyone other than the members of the bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore? Citizens approach the courts through the members of the bar out of sheer exasperation, desperation, and helplessness, not because they want to, but because they have no other option.”
More Read
Details of the Case
The High Court was addressing a review petition from the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) against a May 2024 judgment, which ordered it to pay interest at 9 percent for the first year and 15 percent thereafter on compensation for acquired land. The BDA argued that the original award from the land acquisition officer on April 26, 2016, only stipulated that interest would be payable “as per rules” from when possession was taken until the award was passed.
Subsequently, the landowners filed a petition claiming non-payment. A typed copy of the award attached to the petition indicated an interest rate of 9 percent for the first year and 15 percent for the remaining period, resulting in a co-ordinate bench granting this relief. However, after discovering discrepancies between the original award and the submitted copy, the BDA sought a review of the judgment, leading the High Court to order actions against the lawyers. This order is now temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court.
