Delhi High Court: The present case was taken up suo-motu on mentioning before this Court by Saira Bano, whose daughter Shabnam was in judicial custody in a case, registered under Sections 366-A, 372, 370-A, 420, 506, and 34 of Penal Code, 1860. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., opined that the order which was given to Saira Bano for the bail of her daughter was a forged and fabricated document, which was prepared after editing some details of an earlier order dated 18-9-2023 passed by this Court in some another case. Thus, the Court passed the following directions to inform all stakeholders and public at large about the process through which they might check the authenticity of this Court’s orders or judgments.
Saira Bano submitted that ‘X’, who was a jail visiting advocate and was pursuing the case of her daughter, had given an order of this Court to her daughter in jail, in which it was mentioned that the order on her bail application had been reserved after hearing arguments on 18-11-2023. However, Saira Bano stated that when she had visited her daughter in the jail, her daughter had asked her to enquire about the status of her bail application and thus, Saira Bano had come to this Court to find out about the outcome.
Saira Bano submitted a copy of an order, purported to have been passed by this Court in one bail application on 18-11-2023, titled ‘Shabnam v. State of NCT of Delhi’, in which arguments were allegedly heard by this Court and the order was reserved.
The Court was surprised about the pendency of any such bail application reserved for orders before this Court for allegedly four months had checked the records of the Court and had found that the details of such application or arguments being heard in this application was not reflected in the records of this Court. On further checking the records, it was found that no such was filed before this Court ever, and that the alleged date of the hearing of bail application and reserving of the bail order was mentioned as 18-11-2023 which happened to be Saturday i.e., a holiday. The Registry submitted that in 2023, no such Bail Application was filed before the Delhi High Court.
The Court opined that the order given to Saira Bano was a forged and fabricated document, prepared after editing some details of an earlier order dated 18-9-2023 passed by this Court in another case. The Court noted that the case number mentioned in the alleged order dated 18-11-2023 and the name of counsel for respondent were not edited and they were the same as those mentioned in original order dated 18-9-2023 passed by this Court. This Court also noted that the jail visiting advocate ‘X’, who had handed over the copy of alleged order dated 18-11-2023 to the daughter of Saira Bano, was also the counsel who had appeared and argued in the order dated 18-9-2023.
The Court opined that it was a serious concern of this Court as to how a forged and fabricated order of this Court was prepared and Saira Bano was under the impression that this Court had reserved the order on bail application of her daughter for last four months, whereas there was no order pending reserved before this Court for more than two/three months, at any point of time.
The Court appointed Advocate Harsh Prabhakar as an amicus curiae and the Court directed that Harsh Prabhakar would assist Saira Bano in the present case too in case any FIR was registered based on these proceedings.
The Court opined that it was alarming, shocking, and disconcerting that a forged/fabricated/ manufactured bail order of this Court was prepared and handed over to the accused who had handed it over to her mother, when she had visited her in jail. The mother of the prisoner was illiterate and lacked understanding of legal matters and when she appeared before this Court, she was agitated and was overcome with emotion of distress and in tears that despite her order being reserved for four months, as per her counsel, the Court had not passed any order thereon.
The Court opined that “it was a very serious matter of prima facie forgery and fabrication of order of the Delhi High Court which required investigation, as it was not only about alleged forgery of a bail order, which itself was a serious offence and a matter of grave concern, but together with it was another crucial accompanying issue that the forged/fabricated order had been allegedly handed over to an undertrial prisoner by a jail visiting advocate, who had been appointed to assist and help the undertrials”.
The Court opined that “it was also an issue of giving false hopes to an undertrial prisoner and the prisoner would be under an impression that the bail application had been argued and reserved for the last four months. The misinformation and forged/fabricated document allegedly given to the accused made her believe that her bail application was reserved for orders, as a result of which she was not able to take recourse to any other legal remedy which she could have taken”.
The Court thus found it crucial to inform and pass directions to all the stakeholders concerned including the public that they might exercise caution and diligence, if they deem appropriate in connection with any order or judgment of this Court handed over to them.
Thus, the Court passed the following directions to inform all stakeholders and public at large about the process through which they might check the authenticity of this Court’s orders or judgments:
1. How to Check the Authenticity of Orders Downloaded from the Website of Delhi High Court?
Authentic orders downloaded from the website of this Court i.e., ‘https://delhihighcourt.nic.in’ would feature an ‘emblem’ of the Delhi High Court and a ‘QR code’ for verification on the top of the order, and a timestamp indicating when the order was downloaded from the site of the Delhi High Court on the bottom of the order.
2. How to Check the Authenticity of Judgments Downloaded from the Website of Delhi High Court?
It would include a ‘QR Code’ that could be scanned for verification and the judgment would also bear a digital signature that would be visible on every page of the judgment. Thus, the parties could independently access orders or judgments on the Delhi High Court’s website, which was designed in a user-friendly format in addition to the assistance of their counsels in this regard. Further, every order/judgment could be downloaded from the website of the Delhi High Court free of cost i.e., without payment of any money.
3. Caution in Cases of Dasti Orders
If a party receives an order marked as ‘Dasti’, the first step they should take was to verify whether the order contained a specific line directing it to be provided as ‘Dasti’, and secondly, whether the copy of the order was stamped and signed by officers concerned of Registry. Similarly, when the parties were presented with an order which was ‘Dasti’ under the signatures of the ‘Court Master’, the first step parties should take was to verify whether the order contained a specific line directing so, and whether the copy of order bears the stamp and signatures of the Court Master concerned. The above two categories can be cross-checked by accessing the website of the Delhi High Court.
The Court directed the copy of the present order should be forwarded to Jail Superintendents of all Delhi Prisons, for bringing the same to the knowledge of prisoners, whether under-trials or convicts; Member Secretary, DSLSA and Secretary, DHCLSC, and to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Head Quarter and all the Principal and District Judges of Delhi for information.
The matter would next be listed on 15-4-2024.
[Court on its Own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(Crl.) 891 of 2024, Order dated 14-3-2024]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
