Suppression of Material Facts: Supreme Court dismisses the SLP and imposes a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioners, All India EPF Staff Federation
On June 25, 2024 (Tuesday), the Supreme Court (SC) vacation bench, constituting Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, disapproved the practice of suppressing material facts by lawyers in SLPs (Special Leave Petitions). The bench was hearing a challenge against the March 20 order of the Delhi High Court (HC) that refused to grant interim relief to the All India EPF Staff Federation (petitioners). The SC bench dismissed the SLP with a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioners and said that harsh measures were required. In this case, the main grievance of the petitioner was that the case was adjourned to September without granting any interim relief.
The Supreme Court’s order reads, “The present SLP challenging order dated 20 March 2024 was filed on 14th of June 2024. The Delhi High Court website shows that on 3rd May 2024, the petitioners had moved an application…for an early hearing of the petition. It was obvious that the prayer for an early hearing was made as interim relief was refused and a longer date of September was fixed however, the order dated 3rd May 2024 shows that the advocate for the Petitioner after some arguments did not press the said application and therefore the same was dismissed. Therefore the Court directed that the case be listed on 5th September 2024. Most importantly, in the SLP filed in June 2024, the fact of filling the application…was suppressed and even the order dated 3rd May 2024 was suppressed. In any event, the interim order passed by the High Court adequately protects the interests of the petitioner as all appointments have been made subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the SLP on account of suppression of material facts and direct the Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.”
During the proceedings, Justice Oka said, “Even if you say we are harsh, we will take it as a compliment because the time has come to come down heavily on such petitions where there is suppression of facts...On Monday and Friday at least in ten cases, we have to do this exercise of going to the High Court's website to find out the correct orders passed in the Petitions.” He added, “Please tell us after the impugned order was passed, did you move to the High Court?... Now we have developed this practice when the matter is pending before the High Court, we go to the website of the High Court and check...because sometimes facts are suppressed. Here also, on 3rd May, you filed an application for preponement of the date...that application was not pressed.” In context, the counsel appearing for the petitioner replied in denial and asked the bench to look through the impugned order. Justice Oka replied, “But we are on that. Please see this order. Why this order was suppressed while filing the SLP, tell us?... Your grievance is that without granting interim relief the case has been adjourned to September. Thereafter on the 3rd of May, you moved an application for preponing the date...and you have not pressed that application. Please read this order.” Replying to this, the counsel said “My grievance is not that order, my grievance is that interim relief was declined.”
Justice Abhay S. Oka stated “Listen to us, the case was adjourned to September, therefore, you moved the Court on 3rd May for preponement...that application was not pressed and that matter was adjourned to September...you have suppressed that while filing this SLP...Was it not your duty, before filing the SLP in June, to inform the Court?... We are dismissing your SLP on the grounds of suppression of facts...If you go on arguing this, it will only increase the cost...This is such a sad state of affairs. In the Supreme Court, you suppress such orders and you are brazenly supporting the suppression of facts. We expect the members of the bar to be submissive, you withdraw this or we will impose a cost upon you.” The Counsel apologized and said that he filed 2 applications before the HC, one of which is the present SLP against the order. Justice Oks sternly remarked, “It is not a mistake. We had to download this order from the Delhi High Court's website and point it out to you. What is this going on? This is the highest court in the country, Judges cannot trust the lawyers. Therefore in such matters, they have to go to the High Court's website and download it. Every day, we have to do this.” Lastly, the SC bench dismissed the matter with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
