Supreme Court upholds conviction in a case involving forged High Court stay order used to stall execution of civil decree.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that individuals who knowingly use fake court orders are guilty of criminal contempt of court, even if they are not the original authors of such forgeries. The verdict came in Shanmugam and Ors vs Madras High Court, where the top court confirmed the conviction of three persons who had relied on a forged stay order purportedly from the Madras High Court to resist the execution of a 2004 civil court decree.
The Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PK Mishra underscored the gravity of the offence, stating that creating and using fake court orders is “one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court.”
“When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication,” the Court ruled on May 2.
The matter stemmed from a rent dispute in Tamil Nadu, where a civil court had ruled in favour of a trust in 2004. After the dismissal of appeals, the trust initiated execution proceedings. To stall this, the tenants presented what was later discovered to be forged stay orders allegedly issued by the Madras High Court.
Contempt proceedings were initiated by the High Court in 2018, though notices were formally issued only in 2022 due to case files being misplaced in the registry for four years. Rejecting the argument that the contempt action was time-barred, the apex court clarified:
“Case bundle of writ petition in the High Court was misplaced in the registry of the High Court so as to render the High Court powerless to punish for contempt even though it may be fully convinced of the blatant nature of the contempt… initiation of contempt action shall be treated to have been taken on 05.09.2018.”
While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from six months to one month of simple imprisonment, taking into account the circumstances of the case.
The Court strongly emphasised the need to protect judicial integrity:
“Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record.”
Senior Advocates Sonia Mathur, Nachiketa Joshi, S Nagamuthu, and others appeared for the appellants, while the Madras High Court (administrative side) was represented by Senior Advocate Gurukrishna Kumar.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s zero-tolerance stance against any attempt to manipulate or misrepresent court proceedings, whether by authorship or usage of forged orders.
Case: Shanmugam and ors vs Madras High Court – Available on LAWFYI.IO
