The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on the liability of lawyers attesting affidavits: merely confirming the identity of the deponent does not make an advocate responsible for the statements contained within.
The verdict came while dismissing a special leave petition involving Mumbai-based advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, whose role in a long-running dispute with Ismail Yusuf Junior College had been called into question. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s earlier quashing of the complaint, branding the allegations as “absurd, untenable and malicious.”
The Complaint That Sparked the Case
The dispute began with Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, a former lecturer turned lawyer, accusing Shastri of endorsing falsehoods in an affidavit filed in a civil suit. Bhakad claimed that by attesting the affidavit, Shastri was complicit in forgery, perjury, and cheating. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) initially registered the complaint and forwarded it to its Disciplinary Committee.
High Court and Supreme Court Analysis
The Bombay High Court, in August 2023, rejected these claims, noting that Shastri had never sworn the affidavit; her involvement was limited to identifying the deponent. Simply attesting an affidavit, the Court clarified, does not make a lawyer privy to its contents.
The Supreme Court reinforced this principle: “An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become a privy to its contents. The complaint filed by Bhakad was devoid of substance and founded on malicious and spiteful insinuations.”
The Court also censured the BCMG for pursuing the complaint, describing its actions as “illegal” and “perverse,” resulting in a clear case of malicious prosecution.
Costs Imposed
Acknowledging the “immeasurable grief and harassment” caused to Shastri, the Supreme Court imposed ₹50,000 each on Bhakad and the BCMG. The total ₹1 lakh must be paid to Shastri via the Bombay High Court registry within four weeks.
The judgment underscores that disciplinary proceedings require a genuine professional grievance; a lawyer’s formal role in attesting affidavits does not equate to responsibility for their content.