A man never filed a case. Someone filed it in his name. The Supreme Court found out how.
Bhagwan Singh wrote to the court: 'I never filed any SLP.' Investigation revealed his own daughter, son-in-law, and multiple lawyers forged his signature on vakalatnama and affidavits. The AOR admitted he attested without the petitioner present.
11
years.
Bhagwan Singh wrote to the court: 'I never filed any SLP.' Investigation revealed his own daughter, son-in-law, and multiple lawyers forged his signature on vakalatnama and affidavits. The AOR admitted he attested without the petitioner present.
Bhagwan Singh's daughter eloped in 2013. Years later, someone filed a Supreme Court case in his name—without him knowing. When he found out, he wrote to the judges: 'I never signed anything.'
The letter landed in the Supreme Court registry. Bhagwan Singh, a father from Budaun district in Uttar Pradesh, was categorical: he had never filed any Special Leave Petition (SLP — the legal route to appeal a High Court decision to the Supreme Court). He had never met the lawyers whose names appeared on his vakalatnama (the document authorising an advocate to represent a client). He had never signed the affidavits attached to the petition. Someone had used his name, forged his signature, and dragged a case to the country's highest court — all without his knowledge.
The Court would later discover that the people behind the forgery included his own daughter, her husband, and multiple advocates who had certified documents without ever meeting the man whose name they carried.
When a daughter eloped
In June 2013, Bhagwan Singh's daughter Rinki left home and married Sukhpal Singh. Bhagwan Singh filed an FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation) at Police Station Sehaswan, District Budaun, alleging that his daughter had been abducted. The police investigated and filed a closure report in December 2013 — meaning they found no evidence of abduction.
Five years later, in December 2018, the prosecution filed a supplementary chargesheet (an additional set of charges submitted after the initial investigation) before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun. This supplementary chargesheet named a new accused: Ajay Katara.
Ajay Katara was no ordinary accused. He was the key prosecution witness in the famous Nitish Katara murder case. Now, he was being charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage), and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in connection with Rinki's marriage.
The High Court quashes the case
Ajay Katara approached the Allahabad High Court, filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of its own process). He argued that his inclusion in the supplementary chargesheet was a false implication — that he had nothing to do with Rinki's elopement.
The High Court agreed. On December 16, 2019, it quashed the proceedings against Ajay Katara — effectively wiping out the charges against him.
But the case did not end there. Someone filed a Recall Application (a request asking the court to undo its earlier order) before the same High Court, seeking to revive the charges against Ajay Katara. The High Court dismissed that application on April 2, 2024.
Then, someone filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging both the High Court's 2019 order quashing the charges and its 2024 order refusing to recall that decision. The petition was filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh.
The letter that unravelled everything
Bhagwan Singh learned about the Supreme Court case only when someone told him. He wrote directly to the judges: "I never filed any SLP. I never signed anything." The letter, in his own handwriting, was a simple, direct denial.
The Supreme Court took his letter seriously. It asked the registry to investigate. What emerged was a web of forgery that involved multiple layers of the legal system.
The investigation revealed that the SLP had been filed by Bhagwan Singh's son-in-law Sukhpal Singh and daughter Rinki — the very people whose marriage had triggered the original FIR. They had approached multiple advocates, who prepared forged vakalatnamas and fabricated affidavits. Bhagwan Singh's signature was forged on every document — a shaky, unfamiliar scrawl on the papers that was supposed to be his own.
The Advocate-on-Record (AOR — a lawyer authorised to file cases in the Supreme Court) admitted that he had attested Bhagwan Singh's signature on the vakalatnama without the petitioner being present before him. The Notary (a public official authorised to certify documents) admitted that he had notarised the affidavits without the deponent (the person making the affidavit) being present. Both had relied on identification by the advocates who brought the documents — advocates who were themselves part of the forgery.
What the court said about the fraud
The bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not mince words. The courtroom fell silent as the judgment was read. It found that the entire proceeding was a "brazen attempt to abuse the process of law." Filing a case in someone else's name without their knowledge, using forged documents, and getting officers of the court to certify those documents — this was not a procedural irregularity. It was fraud on the court.
The Court examined the duties of an Advocate-on-Record under Order IV Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (the rule requiring an AOR to personally verify the identity and signature of the party they represent). An AOR who certifies a signature without the party being present, the Court held, commits a serious breach of professional ethics. The same applied to the Notary, who under Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (the law defining a notary's functions) and Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (the rule requiring the deponent to be personally present) must have the deponent personally present before attesting an affidavit.
The Court also addressed a practice that had crept into the Supreme Court's online appearance system. A circular dated December 30, 2022 allowed AORs to mark appearances of advocates through an online portal. The Court clarified that this portal was meant only for advocates who were actually authorised to appear and argue on a particular date — not for advocates who were merely associated with the office but never showed up in court. The forged case had listed multiple advocates as appearing, none of whom had ever met Bhagwan Singh.
The Court relied on three key precedents: Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615, V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. 2012 (12) SCC 133, and Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401, to reinforce that such fraud on the court cannot be tolerated.
The order that sent a message
The Court disposed of the appeals — effectively killing the forged petition. But it did not stop there. It directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a regular case after a preliminary inquiry against all persons found involved in the fraud. The CBI was told to investigate "all links leading to commission of alleged crimes" and submit a report within two months. The original records of the case were to be handed over to the CBI in a sealed cover — a thick, quiet bundle of paper that held the story of a father's stolen name.
The Court also sent a copy of its order to the Bar Council of India (BCI — the body that regulates legal practice in India) and the Government of India for "necessary action" against the advocates involved. The BCI was expected to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers who had participated in the forgery.
THE PLAY: An Advocate-on-Record who attests a party's signature on a vakalatnama without the party being physically present commits professional misconduct — and the court will treat the resulting proceeding as void from the start.
Why this case matters for every lawyer
The judgment is a stark reminder that the Supreme Court treats document verification not as a formality but as a fundamental safeguard against abuse of its process. An AOR who shortcuts the identification process — by accepting a signature from a third party, or relying on another advocate's word — is not just being careless. They are exposing themselves to criminal investigation and disciplinary action.
For Notaries, the rule is equally clear: an affidavit attested without the deponent's physical presence is a nullity, and the Notary who does it faces misconduct proceedings under the Notaries Act.
The case also signals that the Supreme Court is watching how its online appearance portal is used. The portal was designed for efficiency, not for padding appearances with names of advocates who never actually argue. Misusing it will attract scrutiny.
Bhagwan Singh's letter changed the course of a case he never knew existed. The court ended where it began: with a father who wrote to the judges, and a system that finally listened.