Supreme Court Imposes Rs 25,000 Cost for Suppression of Facts in SLP Dismissal
In a significant move today, the Supreme Court condemned the practice of suppressing material facts by lawyers in Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioners, emphasizing that such stringent measures were essential to curb this growing issue.
The vacation bench, consisting of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal, was addressing a challenge against an interim order dated March 20 from the Delhi High Court. The challenge was brought forth by the All India EPF Staff Federation, which complained that their case was adjourned to September without granting interim relief.
During the proceedings, the bench noted that the petitioners had intentionally omitted the order dated May 3, which recorded that their counsel did not press for an early hearing before the High Court.
Upon the bench’s indication of imposing costs, the petitioners’ counsel apologized and requested leniency. However, Justice Oka responded that a harsh approach was necessary to tackle the increasing trend of counsels suppressing orders and material facts. He highlighted the inconvenience this causes to judges, who must then search High Court websites for factual clarity.
“Time has come to come down heavily on such petitions where there is blatant suppression of facts,” Justice Oka stated. “I’m heading a bench which takes up 80 matters on Monday and Friday. At least in 10 cases, we have to do this exercise of going to the High Court website and finding out the correct orders passed in the petitions.”
Despite the counsel’s insistence to hear the matter on its merits, the bench expressed strong disapproval of the advocate’s attempt to pursue the case after the Court had pointed out the factual suppression.
Justice Oka further reprimanded the petitioners, stating, “On your request, the matter was adjourned to September (by the High Court). Was it not your duty to point out this order while filing the SLP? We are dismissing only on the grounds that you have suppressed… It’s a very sad state of affairs. In the Supreme Court, you have suppressed such orders and we had to do this exercise sitting at home… and you are brazenly supporting the suppression of facts! We expect the member of the bar to be submissive when suppression of facts is pointed out.”
In dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court’s order stated:
“The present SLP challenging order dated March 20, 2024, was filed on June 14, 2024. The Delhi High Court website shows that on May 3, 2024, the petitioners had moved application no. 26033 of 2024 for an early hearing of the petition. It was evident that the prayer for an early hearing was made as interim relief was refused, and a longer date of September was fixed. However, the order dated May 3, 2024, shows that the advocate for the petitioner, after some arguments, did not press the said application, and therefore, the same was dismissed. Consequently, the Court directed that the case be listed on September 5, 2024. Most importantly, in the SLP filed in June 2024, the fact of filing application 26033 of 2024 was suppressed, and even the order dated May 3, 2024, was suppressed.
We dismiss the SLP on account of suppression of material facts. We direct the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs 25,000.”
Case Details: ALL INDIA EPF STAFF FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA SLP(C) No. 013329 – 013330 / 2024
