Back
1997 Supreme(SC) 1419
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. S. Anand, K. T. Thomas
S. K. WARIKOO, PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Review Petition No. 2210 of 1997 in SLP (C) No. 12620 of 1997,
decided on November 5, 1997.
Full disclosure of facts is crucial in legal proceedings, and withholding of material information may lead to disapproval and further review of the case.
Headnote:
Withholding of Facts - Review Petition - The court strongly disapproved of the withholding of facts from the bench during the special leave petition, and expressed that the matter would have been declined if the facts had been brought to the notice of the court. The court also issued notice to the learned counsel who had appeared for the respondents in the special leave petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-in-person brought to the notice of the bench through a review petition that one of the members of the bench had dealt with the matter in the High Court, which was not disclosed during the special leave petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court strongly disapproved of the withholding of facts and expressed that the matter would have been declined if the facts had been brought to the notice of the court. The court also issued notice to the learned counsel who had appeared for the respondents in the special leave petition.
Issues: Withholding of facts during the special leave petition, failure to disclose the involvement of one of the members of the bench in the High Court matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court expressed strong disapproval of the withholding of facts and emphasized the importance of full disclosure during legal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court issued notice to the learned counsel who had appeared for the respondents in the special leave petition, and the review petition was made returnable next week.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Personal hearing declined.
3. With this review petition, three annexures have been filed. According to Annexure 1, one of the Members of this Bench (Anand, J.) had admitted the Letters Patent Appeal (No. 30 of 1986) to hearing while presiding over a Division Bench, as Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, on 7-9-1987. Annexure 3 is the copy of Government Notification No. 51 of 1997 of 30-1-1997 reconstituting the Board of Directors of SIDCO after superseding the earlier Board constituted on 18-3-1996. This information was withheld from the Bench at the time when the special leave petition was argued. Annexures 1 and 3 were not brought to the notice of the Bench. In the special leave petition also there is no indication of the facts as contained in these two annexures. We record our strong disapproval of withholding these facts from the Bench when the SLP was argued. It was improper on the part of the advocate not to have informed the Bench. The petitioner-inperson has now rightly averred in para 19 of the review petition that had those "facts been brought to the notice of this Honble Court, their Lordships would have declined to hear the matter".
4. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner-in-person has brought to the notice of the Bench through this review petition that one of us (Anand, J.) had dealt with the matter in the High Court, even though at a preliminary stage of admission of the LPA, we consider it appropriate to issue notice to the learned counsel who had appeared for the respondents on 28-7-1997 in the SLP, in this review petition returnable next week. The record of the special leave petition shall be put up along with the review petition and the same be listed along with this review petition before a Bench of which Anand, J. is not a Member.
