ID, address proof must for filing pleas: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 21

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made identity and address proof of petitioners a must for moving court. The Bench has ruled that petitioners’ identity and residential address would be verified prior to the filing of any matter by mentioning the details of documents considered authentic for establishing the identity of an individual, such as the Aadhaar card or the passport number.

To be verified by counsel

• The HC has made it mandatory to mention petitioner’s contact numbers and address. The same will be verified by the counsel before filing the petition
• The directions came in a case where Sukhvir Singh Lather, posing as Bajinder Singh, filed a PIL and obtained orders in a fictitious person’s name

The Bench has also made mandatory the mentioning of the petitioner’s contact numbers and address. The same would be verified by their counsel before filing the petition.

The direction by the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli came in a case where Sukhvir Singh Lather, posing as Bajinder Singh, filed a petition in public interest and obtained orders from the High Court in a fictitious person’s name.

The matter surfaced after the Bench, hearing a petition by Anil Kumar, observed Bajinder had filed earlier petition CWP (PIL)-131-2020 based upon the same cause of action and against the same set of respondents.

The Bench noticed Kumar in the petition claimed he had served the authorities with a legal notice dated July 2, 2020, before filing CWP(PIL)-131- 2020. The legal notice and an earlier order passed by the High Court revealed Bajinder was the only petitioner in that matter.

His address was also found to be wrong and untraceable after he was sought to be contacted in connection with the matter. The Bench, under the circumstances, expressed doubt if Bajinder even existed and asked the counsel, common to both petitions, to produce the petitioners.

The counsel, during the course of hearing, submitted that CWP (PIL)-131-2020 was filed on instructions of Sukhvir Singh Lather, who disclosed that Bajinder wanted to file a PIL. Lather initially claimed several persons would seek his legal advice for filing petitions and he would refer them to advocates. Bajinder was referred to the counsel now appearing for Kumar after he approached him.

Dissatisfied with the affidavit, the Bench made clear its intent to get to the root of the matter after describing it as “extremely sensitive”. Lather then admitted he had posed as Bajinder.

The Bench observed Lather, tendering an unconditional apology, stated the advocate was unaware of the facts. Kumar, on the other hand, was evidently negligent as he signed the petition verbatim as the first.

Undoubtedly, the first petition was filed by the counsel without verifying the petitioner’s identity or true antecedents. Taking a cue from the situation, the directions were passed to protect the advocates.