Kerala High Court: Justice Flags Fake Affidavits, Demands Verification

• Kerala High Court Justice Kauser Edappagath revealed a pattern of advocates filing fake affidavits in open court.
• The judge stated he would not accept settlements or grant relief without allowing the prosecution time to verify affidavit authenticity.
• Justice Edappagath criticized lawyers for expecting immediate judicial orders on pleas filed just hours earlier, without prosecutorial input.
• He noted that many affidavits previously filed were later found to be fake after prosecutorial review.
• The judge warned that such practices could "spoil a bar-friendly judge" and undermine judicial trust.

Justice Edappagath firmly stated that he could not simply accept such representations or affidavits at face value.

Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court recently brought to light a concerning trend of advocates submitting fraudulent affidavits in court. This revelation occurred during an open court session on a Friday, following a day dedicated to hearing bail-related matters. The judge's remarks were prompted by a specific case where legal counsel for an accused individual sought judicial relief, asserting that a settlement had been reached with the complainant.

Justice Edappagath firmly stated that he could not simply accept such representations or affidavits at face value. He emphasized the critical need to grant the prosecution sufficient time to obtain instructions and independently verify the authenticity of any submitted documents. This insistence on verification stems from a history of instances where affidavits, initially presented to the court, were later discovered to be fabricated once the prosecutor was given the opportunity to investigate.

The judge further questioned the prevailing assumption among some legal practitioners that the court can swiftly grant bail or other forms of relief based on pleas filed just hours before a decision is expected. He underscored the fundamental requirement for the State prosecutor to have adequate time to gather necessary instructions pertaining to the matter at hand. This procedural step is crucial for ensuring a fair and informed judicial process.

Justice Edappagath made it unequivocally clear that he would not sanction any settlement without the prosecution first receiving and processing instructions. He highlighted the impracticality of lawyers filing a petition, for example, at 1 PM and then anticipating a bail order by 4 PM on the same day. Such expectations, he noted, disregard the essential time needed for proper prosecutorial review and response.

The judge's observations extend beyond mere procedural technicalities, touching upon the broader implications for the judiciary and its relationship with the legal fraternity. He pointed out that the repeated submission of unverified or fake affidavits erodes the trust that judges place in the bar. This erosion of trust can inadvertently complicate the judicial process for all parties involved.

Justice Edappagath also orally remarked that prosecutors could confirm the frequent occurrence of fake affidavits, indicating a systemic issue that impacts the integrity of court proceedings and the professional conduct expected from lawyers in Kerala.

As the court proceedings concluded for the day at 4:00 PM, Justice Edappagath expressed a sense of disappointment. He remarked that while the judiciary works tirelessly, the singular focus of some lawyers on their individual cases, often at the expense of proper procedure and verification, ultimately risks alienating "bar-friendly" judges.

This sentiment underscores the potential for such practices to undermine the collaborative spirit essential for the effective functioning of the justice system and highlights the need for greater attention to affidavit authenticity verification within the bail procedure in India.

Lawyers practicing in the Kerala High Court, particularly in bail matters, must ensure the absolute authenticity of affidavits and allow adequate time for the prosecution to verify claims. Failure to adhere to proper procedural timelines and ethical standards regarding document veracity risks judicial reprimand, delays in relief, and undermines the court's trust, potentially impacting case outcomes and professional reputation.

Source: Original reporting from court proceedings