Haryana law officer misled the court: HC
Suppressing material facts, misrepresenting or misleading the court constitutes a serious violation of prosecutorial ethics
Blurb: Suppressing material facts, misrepresenting or misleading the court constitutes a serious violation of prosecutorial ethics and an affront to judicial integrity -Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
A senior law officer of the Haryana government has come under fire for “misleading” the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) during the hearing of a bail petition filed by an accused in a case pertaining to a controversial transaction of land owned by Yoga guru, Dhirendra Brahmachari’s Aparna Ashram Society in Gurgaon.
The accused, Subhash Chander Dutt, had petitioned the HC seeking regular bail or alternatively an interim bail on medical grounds. Dutt passed away at PGIMER, Chandigarh on January 31.
The HC bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, however, took a stern view of the “misleading submissions” made by Haryana additional advocate general (AAG) Deepak Sabharwal, the state’s counsel in the case.
Taking note of “the disturbing sequence of events” that unfolded in the present case, the judge said that the court was misled by the state counsel into believing that a false affidavit had been filed in support of a second bail application under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita before the trial court at Gurugram.
Justice Kaul in a January 31 order said that as a direct consequence of these misleading submissions, this court was compelled to summon the trial court record and examine allegations of professional misconduct by an advocate as well as potential judicial impropriety despite strong objections by both the petitioner’s counsel and daughter in the court.
‘DLSA letter advising filing of bail plea withheld from court’
Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the state intentionally raised the issue of a second bail application to create hurdles in the way of the grant of interim bail.
“A crucial letter issued by the district legal services authority (DLSA) on January 23 wherein advocate Prashant Yadav had been advised by DLSA to file the bail application of the petitioner, was deliberately withheld from this court,” the petitioner’s counsel said. The DLSA had directed Dutt’s lawyer to file an application for his release under NALSA special campaign.
The HC said what is even more troubling is that when confronted, the state counsel belatedly acknowledged and admitted failure, though sought to justify the same as an “inadvertent failure” to examine a crucial annexure for which he tendered apology.
“This explanation, however, is unconvincing and unacceptable because the misrepresentation was not voluntarily corrected but was admitted only after the falsity of the submissions was exposed through the intervention of petitioner’s counsel and on perusal of the summoned records by this court. Such conduct goes beyond mere oversight; it constitutes a grave dereliction of duty and a breach of prosecutorial responsibility,” the judge said.
Asked for a response on HCs observations on his law officer, Haryana advocate general Pravindra Singh Chauhan told HT that there was nothing intentional on the part of AAG, Deepak Sabharwal. “I stand by my officer,” the AG said.
Reiterating foundational principles governing the conduct of state counsels, the judge said they are officers of the court not a mouthpiece for the police or the state. Their duty is to ensure that justice is served, irrespective of the court verdict.
‘Dutt suffered from serious medical conditions’
Justice Kaul in her order said what made this dereliction even more concerning is the larger context within which it occurred. The petitioner (Dutt) was suffering from various serious medical conditions, and the issue of his continued incarceration was at the heart of these proceedings, the bench noted. The HC said that following a report of a medical board constituted at Gurugram civil hospital, Dutt was referred to Artemis hospital in Gurgaon.
“On January 24, the state counsel informed the court that his medical condition was stable, and he did not require further hospitalisation. In support, he placed on record the report of Dr Sumit Singh of Artemis hospital. Thus, conflicting medical reports regarding the medical condition of the petitioner were placed before this court,” the HC said.
While senior counsel for petitioner, Puneet Bali argued on January 24 that the medical condition of the petitioner was far from stable, the state counsel maintained that the petitioner was completely stable and therefore not entitled to bail let alone interim bail.
“It was further asserted that the petitioner’s family was pressing for his continuous hospitalisation solely for insurance related reasons and that the request for further hospitalisation was merely a pretext,” the HC said. The petitioner was later hospitalised at PGIMER, Chandigarh on HC orders. A medical board constituted by PGIMER confirmed that the petitioner was indeed suffering from certain medical ailments and sought additional time to evaluate his condition before submitting a detailed report. “However, unfortunately, before the report could be submitted the petitioner expired,” the court said. The HC said in view of the PGIMER medical board report a prayer was yet again made by the petitioner’s counsel to extend the concession of interim bail. However, in view of the startling submissions made by state counsel - that a second application for regular bail had been filed before the Gurgaon trial court on behalf of Dutt - the case was adjourned to January 31.