Petitioner seeks withdrawal of Sr. Counsel designation of Adv. Siddharth Luthra and action under section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 466, 120(B), 34, 109 of IPC with criminal contempt under Section 2(c) & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Supreme Court Lawyers Associations’ President Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal also wrote letter to CJI and all Judges by giving detailed proofs of other corrupt practices of Adv. Siddharth Luthra.
Petitioner also sought imposition of cost of Rs. 5 crores and direction to Bar Council for action against Adv. Siddharth Luthra, Adv. Asif Qureshi and others and prohibiting them from appearing in any courts in India for lifetime.
Adv. Luthra obtained anticipatory bail to his client Smt. Gita Shejwal in an offence under section 307 of IPC by making a blatant false statement that the other co-accused Sh. Sanket Gaikwad is granted Anticipatory Bail by the Court. However, no Anticipatory Bail was granted to the Co-accused.
The factual reality is that the Sessions court observed that the co-accused Sanket Gaikwad is charged with bailable section of 201 of IPC and on the other hand, the Sessions Court and High Court had specifically observed that there is sufficient material on the police record which disclose the involvement of Smt. Gita Shejwal in an offence of Sec. 307 of IPC.
Furthermore, Supreme Court in many judgements had ruled that the rule of parity cannot be applied to any accused unless the role played by them is same. The court cannot grant bail simply because other accused is released on bail. [Mahadev Meena v. Praveen Rathore, (2021) 17 SCC 788]
But Adv. Siddharth Luthra misled the Supreme Court regarding factual and legal position.
Adv. Siddharth Luthra is habitual in playing fraud upon court and misleading them by making false statements and relying on overruled judgments.
Law is very well settled by the Supreme Court & High Court that the order of bail or any order obtained by practicing fraud upon the court or by making false statement is nullity and vitiated. [State Of Maharashtra Vs. Walchand Hiralal Shah 1996 Cri. L. J. 1102, Shashi Prabha v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Budaun, 2020 SCC OnLine All 636]
Supreme Court had laid down the specific law that when any order is obtained by fraud by filing false affidavit and misleading submissions, then the party, advocates & counsel should be liable for action under Contempt of Courts and also under section 340 of Cr. P. C. where punishment can be under section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 465, 466, 471, 474, 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of IPC.
Supreme Court had called practice like Adv. Siddharth Luthra as ‘falling standard of professional ethics.’
Court also prohibited advocates from appearing in the courts. Further a reference has been forwarded to the Bar Council for disciplinary action against the said advocates. [Baduvan Kunhi v. K.M. Abdulla, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 23602, Ranbir Singh v. State, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 40, P.V.R.S. Manikumar v. Krishna Reddy, 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 107, Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of U.P., (2019) 6 SCC 441, T.V. Choudhary, In re, (1987) 3 SCC 258, Heena Nikhil Dharia v. Kokilaben Kirtikumar Nayak, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9859, M. Veerbhadra Rao vs. Tek Chand AIR 1985 SC 28, State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli, (2004) 7 SCC 19]
In a similar case of fraud upon Court by the Senior Counsel R.K. Anand was sentenced under contempt, his senior designation was withdrawn and Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25 Lacs by issuing notice of enhancement of sentence. [R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2013) 1 SCC 218]
Recently Supreme Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Crores upon dishonest person like Adv. Siddharth Luthra [Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 761]
