Holding

A person who swears a false affidavit in a writ petition is prima facie guilty of perjury under Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Summary

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, examined an affidavit filed by Advocate R. Karuppan in support of a writ of quo‑warranto challenging the age of the Chief Justice of India. The Court found that Karuppan knowingly asserted that the President had not determined the Chief Justice’s age, despite clear evidence that the matter had been settled in 1991. Since an affidavit is evidence under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court held that swearing to a false statement constitutes perjury punishable under Section 193. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint against Karuppan before a competent magistrate. The judgment emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of affidavits and to deter litigants from misleading the courts. The suo‑moto petition was disposed of after ordering prosecution proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether filing a false affidavit in a writ petition amounts to giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC.
Whether such conduct attracts liability for perjury under Section 193 IPC.
Whether the Supreme Court can suo moto initiate criminal proceedings against a litigant for perjury.
Whether the respondent is prima facie guilty of perjury based on the affidavit.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 191, s. 193

Subjects

perjuryfalse affidavitSection 191 IPCSection 193 IPCsuo moto jurisdictionwrit of quo‑warrantojudicial integrityaffidavit as evidence

Judgment

A RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
MR.R.KARUPPAN,ADVOCATE

MAY 12, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Chapter XI-Sections 191 & 193.

Pe1j111J'-Public justice-offences relating to giving false evidence-Duty
of court to curb.
c
Writ-Quo warranto-Raising dispute of age of Hon 'ble the Chief
Justice of India-Affidavit in support of Writ Petition-Making false statement
in it knowing that it is wrong-Held constitutes offence of giving false
evidence under Section 191-Direction for lodging complaint against the
petitioner issued
p
Affidavit-It is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 IPC-
Swearing in a false affidavit-Held constitutes offence of perjury.

The Respondent filed a Petition before, this Court praying for issuance
of writ of Quo warranto against the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. In this
E petition he had raised the question of the alleged disputed age of the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India. Though he fully knew that the age ofHon'ble the Chief
J.ustice of India had been determined by the President of India under Article
217 of the Constitution yet in his affidavit filed in support of the averments
made in the Writ Petition he made a false statement that the age of Hon'ble
F the Chief Justice of India has not been so determined by the President.

Disposing of the suo motu proceedings initiated against the respondent,
the Court

HELD: 1. The Respondent is primafacie guilty of offence of perjury.
Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are
G not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and
relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the ad.judication of which
is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedi_ngs are
to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent
possible in accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court
H cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or
750
RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS MR. R. KARUl'PAN, ADVOCATE, 75 J

insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous A
considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity
of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy. 1756-8-DJ

2. The offences incorporated under Chapter XI of l.P.C. are based upon
recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. B
Unscrupulous litigants arc found daily reporting to utter Blatant falsehood
in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial
system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created
that most of the witnesses coming to the courts despite taking oath make
false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective C
and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury,
concededly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere
existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke
with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite
proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal
Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The D
present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many
of the litigants in the country. [758-A-C)

3. The respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ
peti!ion (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ E
petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India has not been determined by the President of India in terms of
Article 217 of the Constitution. Such a statement supported by an affidavit of
the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false
and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is
evidence within the meaning of section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a F
person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under
section 193 IPC. The respondent herein being legally bound by an oath to
state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is primafacie held
to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false
evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 G
IPC. The Registrar General of this Court is empowered to depute an officer
of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a
Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file
such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.
[758-D-Gt H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Standford H. Kadish in ''Enchclopedia of Crime and.Justice", (Vol. 3),
referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 77 of2001.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
B
Mr. R. Karuppan petitioner in person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Proclaiming to be its President, the respondent Sh. R. Karuppan
C filed a Write Petition in the name of Madras High Court Advocate Association
praying for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India. He also prayed this Court to determine the age of the first
respondent in the writ petition as 1.11.1934 and further that the first respondent
had attained the age of superannuation on 31st October, 1999 and had ceased
to hold the office since then. In support of the averments made in the writ
D petition Shri R. Karuppan ·(hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") also
filed an affidavit. ' '

Before the matter was taken up for admission, the Registry of this Court
received a petition signed by a number of advocates claimi.ng to be the
members of the said Association and alleging that the Association had not
E authorised the respondent to file any writ petition in the name of the
Association. Ignoring the disputes statetl to be existing amongst the members
of the Advocates Association, we wdceeded to consider the writ petition on
the assumption thafthe petition wfs;~ither fiJed on behalf a"fthe Association
or by the respondent on his own in his individual capacity as well, particularly
F when the prayer made was for the issuance of a wri~ of quo warranto. In the
said petition, the respondent had raised the quest}on of the alleged disputed
age of the Hon 'ble Chief Justice of Jndia.

The writ petition was dismissed in limine observing :

"Now Mr. Karuppan made averments in the present writ petition that
G
'the petitioner submits that the dispute·which has arisen as early as
in 1991, undetermined by the President and the operation of Article
217 is still operative and within the jurisdiction of the President.' He
further averred that the 'the petitioner submits that the conduct of the
President of India, ever since the controversy arose till date only ·
H proves that the dispute has never been determined by him or his
RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS MR. R. KARUPPAN. ADVOCATE, [SETHI, .1.J 753

predecessor'. He fu11her averred that the press note released by the A
Government of India to the Press Information Bureau on 23rd October,
2000, reached he notice of the petitioner only after 23.11.2000. In the
context of this statement he concealed the fact that copy of the said
press note was included in the files of the contempt proceedings
initiated against S.K. Sundaram as early as 7.11.2000. Mr. Karuppan B
admitted before us that he himself appeared in this Court as Advocate
for S.K. Sundaram on 20.11.2000."

Notice was issued to the respondent requiring him to show cause why
prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated against him for offence under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
c
. During the pendency of these proceedings 600 and odd persons, claiming
to be the members of the Advocates Association submitted in writing that
the Association had not passed any Resolution regarding the age of the CJI
and that Mr. Karuppan was not authorised to file any case representing the
Association. As the notice was issued against the respondent in his individual D
capacity, we granted him time to file reply to the notice, if he so desired. In
reply, the respondent has reiter<!_ted the submissions made earlier in the writ
petition filed by him. It is submitted that he believed bonafide that the
President of India had not determined the age of the Chief Justice of India
and even if any determination has been made under Article 217 of the
Constitution, the same is not conclusive for all times. It is contended that the E
respondent came to know of the Press Information Bureau release, informing
that the age of the Chief Justice of lndia stood determined by the President
of India as early as on 16.5.1991 only in December, 2000. The respondent has
submitted that he is not guilty of offence of perjury.
F
We have heard the respondent who has appeared in person and examined
the whole record.

Proved or admitted facts of the case are that one S.K. Sundaram,
Advocate sent a telegraphic communication to Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, the
Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on 3.11.2000 which read as under: G
"I call upon Shriman Dr. A.S. Anand Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
to step down from the Constitutional Office of Chief Justice of India
forthwith, failing which I will be constrained to move the criminal
cou1t for offences under Sections 429, 406, 471 lndian Penal Code for
falsification of your age, without prejudice to the right to file a writ H
I

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.CR

A of quo-warranto against you and for a direction to deposit a sum of
Rs. 3 crores for usurping to the office of Chief Justice of India even
after attaining the ag~ of superannuation."

The said S.K. Sundaram also filed a criminal complaint before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chennai against the CJl. On a note put up by the Registrar
B General regarding the said telegraphic communication, this Court vide order
dated 7.11.2000 found that prima facie the said S.K. Sundaram was guilty of
contempt of court. A notice was issued to him in reply to which he filed his
objections. He was represented by the respondent herein. During the pendency
of the contempt proceedings this Court was informed that the President of
'1'
i
C India, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, decided the question
relating to the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand as early as on 16.5.1991 holding
that the date of birth of Dr. Anand was 1.11.1936. The Court was further
informed that for arriving at the conclusion of Dr. Justice Anand's age being
1.11.1936, the President had considered the following documents :

D "(!)The certificate of matriculate examination dated 1.9.1951 issued by
the University of J&K in respect of Adarsh Sein Anand (the present
CJI) which showed explicitly that his date of birth was 1.11.1936. (2)
The passport issued to Adrash Sein Anand (the present CJI) 0'!_
3.8.1960, also explicitly showed that his date of birth was I.I 1.1936. (3)
the report prepared by the then CJI in respect of the age of Dr. Justice
E A.S. Anand, who was then a Judge of the High Court."

The President's Secretariat issued an order way back on 16.5.1991 which
read as under ': . -

"The petition from Shri S.K. Sundaram,· advocate, Madras, to the
F President on beh'alf of his client Shrimati Kasturi Radhakrishnan-a,
Chairperson, Madras Citizens Progressive Council, Madras and the
records have been perused and the matter considered by the President,
in concultation with the Chief Justice of India. The President has
come to the conclusion that the petitions of Shri S.K. Sundaram,
Advocate, Madras, in respect of the age Of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand of
G, the Madras High Court, be rejected and that no inquiry as stipulated
under Article 217(3) of the Constitution need be undertaken."

While disposing of the contempt petition this Court held :

"We have absolutely no doubt that when the President of India
H resolved the question of age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand in 1991· when
RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS MR. R. Ki\RUl'l'AN, ADVOCATE. [SETHI, .I J 755

he was the Judge of the High Court, that too pursuant to the contemner A
himself raking up the question then, he should have, as a dutiful
citizen of India, realised that the said decision attained finality so far
as the question of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand is concerned.
Such decision was based on very weighty and formidable materials
available to the President of India then."
B
The Court found that the contemnor was guilty of gross criminal
contempt of court and accordingly convicted him. He was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for six months, the operation of which was suspended
for a period of one month which was later extended upon furnishing of an
undertaking by the contemner. All along during the contempt proceedings, C
the respondent herein was present in the Court and fully knew that the age
of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand had been determined by the President of India on
16.5.1991 in exercise of his powers under Article 217 of the Constitution.

Despite the knowledge of the determination of the age of Dr. Justice
A.S. Anand by the President of India and the finding of this Court, the D
respondent herein filed the present writ petition accompanied by .his personal
affidavit wherein he stated :

"The petitioner submits that after the passing of the above said
resolution, ircame to its notice that on October 23, 2000 the Government E
of India had released a press note to the Press Information Bureau.
Therein it had been stated that on 16.5.1991 the President had
determined the age of the 1st respondent and that Sundaram' s attempt
to reopen the said issue in 1991 was rejected. Significantly this press
report was not published in the dailies in Tamil Nadu. This renders the
statement dubious and no credence could be attached to this F
communication."

He further submitted :

"The petitioner submits that the dispute which had arisen as early as
in 1991, undetermined by the President and the operation of Article G
217 is still operative and within the jurisdiction of the President."

The respondent submitted before us that the avennents made by him
m his writ petition were correct. and that he was not guilty of perjury.
Alternatively he submitted that he had no knowledge of the passing of the
order by the President of India in l 991, prior to 2nd December, 2000. H
I

~
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication -
.of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal
liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The
courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being
biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system woul<j/
B be- wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, '¥ho
attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon the false evidence
particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement
of facts. If the resuit of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues
before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with
the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be
c sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious orf insufficient grounds or relying
upon false evidence inspired by ~xtraneous considerations or revengeful
desire to narass or spiie his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be
preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements,
without any ~egard to accuracy.

D At common Jaw courts took action against a person who was shown
to have made a statement, material in the proceedings, which he kn'ew to be '
false or did not believe to b.e true. The offence committed by him is known
as perjury. Dealing with the history of the offence, Standford H. Kadish in
"Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice" (Vol. 3) observed :
E "History of. the offence

Before witnesses had any formal role in trials, there was no need
for a perjury Jaw. In the Middle Age, when the English common law
was developing, trial by battle was used to test a swom accusation.
Similarly, for the sworn denial of a serious charge based on me_re
F suspicion, an ordeal_ administered by a priest was the predominant
mode of trial until it was abolished in 1215 as superstitious. Finally,
at least untjl the Assize of Clarendon (1166), less serious accusations
could be successfully answered by "compurgation", that is, by
obtaining a sufficient number of "oath helpers" to suppbrt the
G defendant's credibility.

Trials in the modern sense began to develop only in the thirteenth
century. Little is reliably known about the con.duct of jury trials prior
to the sixteenth century, but in civil cases, it 'se~ms that genuine
witnesses were permitted to give their accounts, although they could
H not be compelled to appear. In early criminal cases, the jury seems
RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS MR. R. KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE, [SETI-II, .I.] 757

always to have included some who, aware of the commission of a A
crime in their community brought the suspect before a judge. Those
witnesses who did attend these early trials were perceived as part of
the jury and retired with them to deliberate, often to make their
disclosures in secret. It was the verdict, not the testimony, that was
perceived as either true or false; the only remedy for falsehood remotely B
akin to a perjury prosecution was a seldom-invoked procedure called
"the writ of attaint," created in 1202 and not abolished formally until
1825. Though attai~t, the jury would be punished for a 'false' verdict
and the verdict itself overturned.

Witness first testified under oath in criminal cases on behalf of the C
Crown in the sixteenth century. No witnesses for the defense were
permitted until the mid-seventeenth century, since they would have
been witnesses against the Crown, and not until 1702 were defense
witnesses permitted to be sworn (I Anne, St. 2, c.9, s.3 (1701) (England)
(repealed)). By the late seventeenth century the jury had lost all its
testimonial functions, and witnesses thus became the sole means of .J)
bringing facts to the judge's and jury's attention.

Since the early common law had no established mechanism for
dealing with false swearing by witnesses, the Court of Start Chamber
assumed for itself the power to punish perjury. This authority was
confirmed by statute in 1487 (Star Chamber Act, 3 Hen. 5, c. 1 (1487) E
·(England) (repealed). The first detailed statute against false swearing·
was enacted in 1562 (5 Eliz. 1, c. 9 ( 1562) (England) (Repealed)). When
the Star Chamber was abolished in 1640, its judicially defined offense
of perjury passed into English common law, reaching any cases of
false testimony not covered by the terms of the statute. F
Edward Coke, whose views strongly influenced early American
law, wrote in his Third Institute, published in 1641, that perjury was
committed when, after a 'lawful oath' was administered in a 'judicial
proceeding', a person swore 'absolutely and falsely' concerned a
point 'material' to the issue in question (* 164). In this form, the law G
remained unchanged into the twentieth century."

In India, law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory
definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code,
.., incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against
public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon H

•
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath.
I
Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in
the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system.
It is a fact, though unfortu·nate, that a general impression is created that most
of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements
B to suit the interests of the parties calling them. -Effective and stern action is
required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose
by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal
provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless
the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission
of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian ~enal Code. If the system is
C to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no
exception to the general practice being followed by 'many of the litigants in
the country.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of
p~oceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of2000 and Writ
D Petition No. 77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent
herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes
of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. _writ petition), has wrongly made
a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined
by the President of India in terms of Article 217 of the constitution. We are
E satisfied that such a statement supported by an affidavit of the respondent
was known to whom to be false which he believed.to be false ~nd/or atleast
did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence
within the meaning ~f Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person
swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193
IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth
F in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made
a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as
defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.

With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the
G Registrar General of this Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy
Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint ui1der Section 193 of the
Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of
competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint
and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.

H T.N.A. Suo Motu Petition disposed of.