Judiciary – Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Stand on False Cases
Judiciary – The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Union government in response to a petition that raises concerns about the growing misuse of criminal law through false complaints, fabricated evidence, and malicious prosecution. The matter was heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who remarked that apprehensions about being accused of “gagging” individuals should not deter the judiciary from examining potential abuse of the legal system.
Petition Flags Misuse of Criminal Law
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, was considering a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition argues that the filing of baseless cases and submission of fabricated material in criminal proceedings pose a serious challenge to the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, dignity, and the rule of law.
According to the petitioner, the strain on courts is not solely due to legitimate disputes but also because of a rising number of allegedly frivolous and vindictive cases. He submitted that such practices not only burden trial courts but also create fear and uncertainty among ordinary citizens.
Concerns Over Conversion of Civil Disputes
During the hearing, the petitioner contended that personal or property disputes are sometimes given a criminal dimension, including invoking stringent legal provisions unrelated to the actual nature of the disagreement. He argued that this trend disrupts social harmony, particularly in rural areas, where civil disagreements are increasingly being framed as criminal complaints.
The plea suggests that this pattern erodes trust in the justice system and places innocent individuals under prolonged legal pressure. It also highlights the emotional and financial toll faced by those compelled to defend themselves against unfounded allegations.
CJI Calls for Greater Public Awareness
Addressing the broader issue, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that public awareness about legal rights and responsibilities is essential to curb the misuse of criminal procedures. He noted that while courts may face criticism for intervening in such matters, addressing systemic concerns remains a judicial responsibility.
He emphasized the need to cultivate a culture of fraternity and mutual respect among citizens. According to the Chief Justice, individuals should be informed not only about their own rights but also about the rights of others in their communities. An informed society, he indicated, could play a key role in preventing the filing of false or exaggerated complaints.
Existing Legal Provisions and Implementation Gaps
The petition further states that statutory provisions already exist to penalize the filing of false complaints and the submission of fabricated evidence. However, it claims that both the Centre and the States have not taken adequate steps to ensure effective implementation of these safeguards.
During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner stressed the importance of educating complainants about the legal consequences of submitting false affidavits or misleading information. He suggested that when individuals approach police stations to file complaints, authorities should inform them about the penalties associated with lodging false cases.
Demand for Public Display of Legal Consequences
As part of the relief sought, the petitioner has requested directions to the Union and State governments to install display boards in public institutions. These would outline the legal provisions and punishments related to false complaints and fabricated evidence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The proposed locations for such notices include police stations, court complexes, panchayat offices, municipal buildings, and educational institutions. The objective, according to the petition, is to promote transparency and deter misuse of criminal law through clear communication of legal consequences.
The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response on the matter. The case is expected to be taken up again after the government submits its position, setting the stage for further deliberation on balancing access to justice with safeguards against abuse of the legal process.