REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5239 OF 2002

Dalip Singh

…Appellant

Versus

State of U.P. and others

…Respondents

O R D E R

1.

For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life

i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam

Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in

their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system

which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel

proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.

However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value

system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest

for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do

not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and

suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new

creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not

have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and

unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge

posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time,

evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who

attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain

of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

2.

In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, this Court

adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the

appellant by making the following observations:

“It is of utmost importance that in making material

statements and setting forth grounds in applications for

special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care

must be taken not to make any statements which are

inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with

applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes

statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the

petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to

betray the confidence of the Court by making statements

which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of

the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material

statements made by the appellant in his application for special

leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is

entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained

special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what

he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts contained in

the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to

the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the

appellant ought to be revoked.”

2

3.

In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

others etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Court held that a party which has

misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be

heard on the merits of the case.

4.

In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of

Karnataka and another AIR 1991 SC 1726, the Court denied relief to

the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by

the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the

Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court.

While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed:

“Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave

Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know

about these orders only when the respondents appeared in

response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our

view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the

question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly

amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground

alone, the Special Lea