Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition alleging illegal construction after uncovering that it had been filed using a private citizen’s name without her consent and on the strength of forged property documents. Holding that the judicial process was sought to be misused through impersonation, fabricated title papers, and abuse of public interest litigation, the Court ordered continuation of criminal investigation, directed registration of an FIR, and referred the conduct of the advocates involved to the Bar Council of India for disciplinary scrutiny, declaring that courts cannot permit themselves to become tools of fraud .
Facts
The writ petition was filed seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to act against alleged illegal and unauthorized construction on a property in Jamia Nagar, Delhi. The petition asserted ownership rights over part of the property and relied on documents such as a General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter, and receipt. During the hearing, serious doubts emerged regarding the authenticity of both the petitioner’s claim and the documents relied upon, prompting the Court to examine whether the petition itself was bona fide .
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were whether the writ petition had been filed with clean hands, whether the petitioner had authorized the filing of the case, and whether the documents annexed to the petition were genuine. A broader institutional issue also arose: whether a pattern of forged writ petitions and misuse of PIL jurisdiction was developing to harass property owners and extort money, thereby undermining the integrity of the justice delivery system.
Petitioner’s arguments
No submissions were advanced on behalf of the petitioner during the hearing. The absence of representation itself raised concerns. Subsequently, when the police traced and examined the individual in whose name the petition was filed, she categorically denied filing the writ petition, denied ownership of the property, and disowned the signatures on the documents relied upon. She asserted that unknown persons had misused her Aadhaar identity and personal details to fabricate documents and initiate litigation without her knowledge or consent .
Respondent’s arguments
The respondents, including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the private property owner, brought to the Court’s notice that multiple writ petitions had been filed using different names but identical pleadings and document sets. It was argued that similar claims of ownership were being advanced across cases through forged documents, all routed through the same legal channels. The respondents highlighted an earlier writ petition where identical tactics had been employed and which had already resulted in adverse judicial findings against the petitioner for approaching the Court with unclean hands .
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the settled principle that writ jurisdiction, particularly in matters alleging illegal construction and public law violations, is discretionary and equitable. A litigant invoking this jurisdiction must come with clean hands and disclose true and complete facts. Filing a writ petition on the basis of forged documents, impersonation, or without authority of the named petitioner strikes at the root of judicial integrity. Such conduct amounts not merely to private fraud but to fraud on the court itself, warranting stringent corrective and deterrent measures.
Precedent analysis
The High Court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that creation and use of forged documents in court proceedings constitutes a serious fraud on the judiciary. The Supreme Court had emphasized that courts cannot allow themselves to be instruments of oppression, abuse, or subversion of justice, and that advocates involved in such acts are not immune from criminal or disciplinary proceedings. The Delhi High Court applied this precedent to underscore that misuse of court process corrodes public confidence in the justice system .
Court’s reasoning
After perusing the detailed status report filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Court found overwhelming evidence that the writ petition had been filed without the petitioner’s authorization. The named petitioner unequivocally denied filing any writ petition, denied ownership of any property in Delhi, and denied her signatures on all annexed documents. The police investigation revealed that forged property papers had been manufactured using misused Aadhaar details. The Court also noted that several other petitions had been filed in different names, following the same modus operandi, suggesting an organized pattern rather than an isolated incident .
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the writ petition was a clear abuse of process, founded on impersonation and forged documents. It held that such litigation not only victimizes innocent property owners and private citizens whose identities are misused, but also constitutes a fraud on the Court. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, directions were issued for continuation of criminal investigation including registration of an FIR, and institutional safeguards were activated by involving the Bar Council of India to examine professional misconduct by advocates connected with the filings .
Implications
This judgment sends a strong signal against the growing menace of fraudulent PILs and writ petitions filed on the basis of forged documents. It reinforces judicial intolerance towards impersonation, identity misuse, and abuse of municipal law litigation to pressure property owners. By directing investigation against both unknown perpetrators and advocates involved, the Court has reaffirmed accountability within the legal profession. The ruling also strengthens public trust by making it clear that the High Court will actively protect its process from being hijacked for extortion, harassment, or illegal gain.
Case law references
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)
Held that forging documents and filing proceedings without authority amounts to fraud on the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that advocates involved in such misconduct can face criminal prosecution and disciplinary action. The Delhi High Court relied on this ruling to justify referral to the Bar Council and continuation of criminal investigation. - V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012)
Held that misleading pleadings and inaccurate affidavits filed to achieve ulterior purposes amount to abuse of the process of court. This principle was invoked to underline why the present writ could not be entertained.
FAQs
1. What happens if a writ petition is filed using forged documents?
Courts can dismiss the petition, order criminal investigation, direct registration of an FIR, and take action against those responsible, including advocates.
2. Can advocates face action for filing false petitions?
Yes. Advocates can face disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council and may also be criminally prosecuted if they participate in forging or using false documents.
3. What is meant by “fraud on the court”?
Fraud on the court occurs when judicial proceedings are initiated or pursued through deception, impersonation, or forged documents, undermining the integrity of justice delivery.