Affidavit notarised after the death of party, Supreme Court mooting attestation by AoRs

The Supreme Court dealt with an unsavoury episode last week when it found out that a reply affidavit filed on behalf of one of the parties was notarised after the death of the party..In a matter titled Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Uttarakhand listed before Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph, a reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the victim’s father who had passed away on February 13, 2019. This affidavit was, however, dated June 30, 2019 and was affirmed and duly signed by a notary..Expressing its shock over this fact, the Bench on July 5 sought the presence of the AoR and the notary. The Court also appointed Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The order passed on July 5 reads:.“Mr. Santokh Singh-respondent No.2 passed away on 13.02.2019. Reply Affidavit filed on his behalf is affirmed on 30.06.2019 duly notarised. .Let the notary and the counsel who has filed the affidavit be present before the Court on the next date of hearing. .We appoint Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.”.When the matter came up for hearing again on July 12, the AoR requested withdrawal of the reply affidavit after assuring the Court that the mistake was a genuine one..The Court permitted the same..The Court, however, noted that attestation by a notary has become a mere formality, that takes place without even the presence of the parties. As stated in the order,.“It appears that the persons seeking attestation from notary are just too many, apart from the fact that litigants come from all over the country in the Supreme Court. Even at times, they are not able to come to Delhi. The net result is that the attestation by notary is taken as a mere formality without even the presence of the parties.”.The very purpose of having a notary to attest affidavits does not seem to be sub-served if attestation takes place without the presence of the parties, as it only amounts to putting a seal on the affidavit with payment to the notary..The Court, therefore, observed that it is a matter which has to be looked into by the representatives of the Bar and the Supreme Court on the administrative side. It also suggested exploring the possibility of AoRs attesting the affidavit and taking responsibility..“We do think that it is a matter to be discussed by the representatives of the Bar and on the administrative side of this Court and some possibilities may be explored including looking into practice of some Courts where Advocate-on-Record attests the affidavit and, thus, takes the responsibility.” .It, therefore, directed the President of Supreme Court Bar Association, the President of the Suprme Court AoR Association, the Amicus Curiae, and the Attorney General or a law officer nominated by the Attorney General to look into the issue and make suggestions on the administrative side within four weeks..The matter is now listed for hearing on July 29..[Read Order]