Holding

The petitioners are guilty of contempt of this Court for filing a false affidavit, and exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000 are imposed.

Summary

The petitioners, Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and others, filed an application to be transposed as petitioners in several Special Leave Petitions, asserting in an affidavit that the petitioner's mother‑in‑law had died a year and a half earlier. Respondents later produced evidence and affidavits confirming that the alleged deceased was, in fact, alive. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the petitioner who had sworn the false affidavit and gave her an opportunity to explain, which she failed to do. The Court held that the filing of the false affidavit and the subsequent application were not made in good faith and constituted contempt of the Court. Consequently, the petitioners were found guilty of contempt and were ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000, with a warning of possible imprisonment for non‑payment.

Issues considered

Whether filing a false affidavit to support an application for transposition as petitioners amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court.
Whether exemplary costs can be imposed on parties found guilty of contempt in such circumstances.

Subjects

contempt of courtfalse affidavittransposition of partiesexemplary costsSupreme CourtSpecial Leave Petitioncivil procedure

Judgment

.,
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 260

A SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR.
V.
SAGI SUBBA RAJU AND ORS. ETC.
(Special Lec;ive Petition (C) Nos. 20374-76 of 2004)
MAY 6, 2009
8
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
,;

Contempt of court - Application for transposing
c applicants as petitioners in SLP - Swearing in, of false
affidavit to the effect that her mother-in-law expired, as such
she be transposed as petitioner-. Notice to applicant - Held:
Person named by applicant as dead is alive - Filing of the
application and the affidavit re-affirming the position was not
D bonafide - Also, applicants did not clarify the position though
opportunity was given to them - Thus, applicants guilty of
contempt of this Court - Exemplary costs of Rs. 25,0001-
imposed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) Nos.
E 20374-20376 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2003 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Letters Patent
..
Appeal No. 323 of 1992 and Appeals Nos. 2959 and 2960
2001.
F
M. N. Rao. A. D.N. Rao, A. Ramesh and A Subba Rao,
for the Petitioners.
Abhijit Sengupta, K. L. Sastry, Amit Kumar Srivastava and
R.V. Kameshwaran for the Respondents.
G
The following order of the Court was delivered:
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. When the matter was taken
up on 3.2.2009, the Court passed the following order.
H 260
SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. v. 261
.,
Ill"'' ... SAGI SUBBA RAJU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.N. Rao, A
learned senior counsel brought to the notice that I.A.Nos.
9 to 11/2008 had been filed for transposing the applicants
as petitioners. It is also prayed that they may be transposed
as petitioner Nos. 2 <md 3 from proforma respondent Nos.
2 and 5 in speqial !eave petition ag<1inst the order in ~PA B
No. No. 323191. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 from respondent
'1
Nos. 1 and ~ in speo!!'ll !e11vei petition a~ainst the order in
Appeal too. 2959/2001 and Appeal No. 2960/2001.

This application is filed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, a
statement was made on 25.8.2008 by !earned counsel for c
respondent 1 that the petitioner had died. Learned
counsel wanted to obtain further instructions in the matter.
Thereafter it appears that a copy of affida'li!_ has been
.... . .
ser\ted on learned counsel for the petitioners as well, some
of the respondents that Sunkara Lakshminarasamma had D
died about 1 and 1/2 years earlier. The affidavit is dated
26.12.2008. A copy has been filed for our record by
learned counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit has been
filed by Sunkara lakshmf narasamma which has been filed
on 30th January, 2009 stating that the affidavit filed by E
Sunkara Kamala is wrong and she is alive and a false
,
·-1 affidavit has been flied.

In view of the aforesaid position, let notice be issued
to Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall F
not been taken against her for swearing a false affidavit
for the purpose of this case as is evident from the fact that
copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for
the parties. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks.
'. ~. Personal presence is dispensed with for the present.
G
The matter shall be listed on 24th February, 200¥.

2. In view of the statement made, notice was issued to
Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall not be
taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.

A of this case as is evident from the fact that the copies thereof
have been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply was
to be filed within two weeks. At that stage personal appearance
was dispensed with.

3. When the matter was listed on 4.3.2009, in spite of the
8
directions of this Court, the respondent did not file any reply.
This is apparently a clear case of contempt as false affidavit
has been filed. On 8.9.2008 it was brought to the notice of this
Court by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners
that after verification from his clients he has ascertained that
C Mrs. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Thawala Divya Sarojini
Kasidevi are alive.

4. The affidavit which has been filed on 26.12.2008 states
as follows: ...
D
"I, Smt. Sunkara Kalama @ Dorasani W/o late S.
Veeraswamy Rio Bhimavaram, Distt. East Godhavari do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the daughter-in-law of Sunkara
E Lakshminarasamma. I am well conversant with the
facts, records and circumstances of the case.
Hence I am competent to swear in this affidavit. \.'

2. I say that my mother-in-law had died one year and
F six month ago. I have filed an application for
transposing as a petitioner in the above special
leave petition and state that the averments facts
made therein are true to my knowledge and
information derived from the record of the case.
G 3. I say that the averments of facts stated herein above
are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

H Verified at Bhimavaram on this 26th day of
SUN KARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. v. 263
SAGI SUBBA RAJU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
December, 2008" A

5. After the statements made by learned counsel for the
petitioners that those whom the contemnor has named as dead
are alive there is no denial of the statements. Opportunity was
granted to the concerned respondents to clarify the position but
that has not been done.
8

6. The application was made for transposition as
petitioners in the special leave petitions. In view of the apparent
false statement stated in the affidavit, it is clear that the
application filed and the affidavit thereafter re-affirming the C
position were not done bona fide. That being so, the applicants
on the face of it are guilty of contempt of this Court. Exemplarf
costs of Rs.25,000/- is imposed. The amount shall be deposited
in this Court within a period of two months. If the amount is not
paid the contemnor shall suffer simple imprisonment for three D
months.

7. Ordered accordingly.

N.J. Applicants held guilty of contempt.

L