[1996 Bombay Blasts] Advocates should not suppress material facts: Bombay High Court refuses parole after lawyer makes misleading statement

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court refused to grant emergency parole to two convicts in 1996 Bombay Blast case on the ground that the advocates of the petitioners made misleading statements and did not disclose the correct position of law to the court in order to hoodwink the court and secure a favourable relief (Asgar Kadar Sheikh & Anr. v. Jail Superintendent). .A Bench of Justices VM Deshpande and Amit B Borkar emphasised that the advocates are expected to make accurate statements as officers and not suppress material facts to get favourable orders. The Bench at the outset acknowledged that lot of matters on intricate issued are often disposed of by courts on the basis of statements made by advocates assuming it to be correct and true..On expectation from advocates to verify position of law before making presentation to the Court, the Bench said, "We are of the view that in a given case, it may be due to negligence of the advocate, but the consequences would be an erroneous judgment having precedential value, possibly requiring constitution of Larger Bench to correct the error of law which crept in due to failure on the part of the advocate to perform his duty.".The Court also emphasised through their order that a message is required to be given to each advocate to be responsible and careful in what is presented to the Court."Advocates are a class with a unique complex of duties to their clients and to the Court," the Court said.An Advocate, being an officer of Court, must bring to notice of the Court the correct position of law whether for or against either party, it added. "Even if there is any decision against him, it is the duty of the advocate to bring it to the notice of the Court. He may later on distinguish it on the facts of particular case, or even contend that the decision does not lay down correct law," the order said. .The strong observations were made by while hearing petition filed by Asgar Kadar Sheikh and Mohd. Yakub Abdul Majid Nagul, filed for an application seeking release on emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules..Advocate MN Ali, representing the petitioners, apprised the Court that the petitioners had been granted parole on two occasions. Sheikh had surrendered after his parole without a day's delay, while Nagul had surrendered after a delay of 11 days. Ali also cited an order passed by a co-ordinate bench in a co-accused's case directing the jail authorities to reconsider his parole application.Relying on the statements of Ali and to save judicial time, the Bench began dictating a similar order in the petition in open court partly allowing the petition. However mid-dictation, they noted that both petitioners had surrendered late on earlier occasions.They also discovered an unreported judgment of a co-ordinate bench which clearly laid down that convicts who had surrendered late on earlier occasions are not entitled to emergency parole. The Court therefore adjourned the matter for a fresh hearing..On the next hearing, Ali confessed to having been aware of the legal position that delay in surrendering did not entitle the applicant for release on emergency parole, he purposefully did not disclose to get a favourable order. The Court observed that Ali wanted to get an order from them with observations on merits of the case so that the Jail Supreintendent of Nashik would compelled to release the petitioners on emergency parole..In light of the development, the Court pulled up Ali for attempting to mislead the Court by suppressing material fact that both petitioners were, in fact, not eligible for release on emergency parole. "We are of the opinion that the advocate for the petitioners had tried to twist the relevant facts and suppressed the material fact to snatch favourable order," the Court said. .In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court refused to grant emergency parole to the petitioners citing reasons that the petitioners had not surrendered on time during previous occasions. The Court also noted that their conviction was under special acts which in the context of other offences (violence using dangerous weapons, mischief by fire and explosives with an intention to cause hurt) amounted to serious offences."This case illustrates an attempt on the part of the advocate for the petitioners by making misleading statement which on the first blush appears to be innocuous but on deeper scrutiny reveals an attempt to twist facts to get favourable relief for his clients," the Court said. .[Read judgment]