| Headnote |
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: O. 19, r. 3 CPC and O. 11 of Supreme Court Rules - Affidavits in support of petitions - Affirming of contents of the petition in the affidavits - Disclosure of source of information in an affidavit - Significance of - Explained - HELD: In the instant writ petition, the petitioner approached the Court in a casual manner - The affidavit filed by him in support of the petition, relying on which the Court issued notice, was not at all modelled either on O. 19 r. 3 CPC or O. 11 of Supreme Court Rules - If the rules of affirming the affidavits were followed, it would have been difficult for the petitioner to file the petition and so much of judicial time would have been saved - Perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with 0. 19, r. 3 CPC or with O. 11, rr. 5 and 13 of Supreme Court Rules, should not be entertained by the Court - Registry of the. Court.directed to scrutinize affidavits in all petitions/applications strictly - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - O. 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32.PLEADINGS:Inconsistent stands by writ petitioner - HELD: A litigant who comes to Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands - He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions - It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy and must be governed by principles of 'uberrima fide' - Equity - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32.CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:Articles 32 and 21 - Writ petition alleging infringement of right of privacy of the petitioner stating that his telephone conversations were being intercepted at the behest of the Government- HELD: The petitioner invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court without filing a proper affidavit - The nature of challenge in the petition is very serious as he is alleging an attempt by the government of intercepting his phone for extraneous considerations - It is, therefore, imperative that before making such an a/legation the petitioner should be careful, circumspect and should file a proper affidavit in support of the averments in the petition - This is the primary duty of a petitioner, who invokes the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966.Article 32 - Writ petition - Conduct of petitioner - Writ petition filed alleging interception of his telephone conversations by the Government agencies at the behest of the political party in power - Allegations directly and indirectly made in the writ petition against the said political party impleading it as one of the respondents -Interim injunction passed by Court - Later, it was brought before the Court that the order intercepting the phone calls were fabricated and a criminal case had already been registered against accused persons - Affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the allegations against the said political party - HELD: The main case of the petitioner is based on his a/legations against the said political party - Petitioner has been shifting his stand to suit his convenience - The instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppressing material facts - The so-called legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation - No case of tapping of telephone has been made out against the statutory authorities in view of the criminal case, which is going on, and the petitioner's stand that he is satisfied with the investigation in that case - Besides, the petitioner in filing the writ petition largely relied upon the information received from an accused in the criminal case. Article 32 - Writ petition - Suppression of material fact - Effect of - Writ petition alleging tapping of telephone of writ petitioner-The communications on the basis of which the interception was alleged and which were received from the accused and were made annexures in the writ petition, found to be forged and criminal case initiated in which petitioner's statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded - This fact not stated in the writ petition - HELD: A statement u/s 161 is certainly material fact in a police investigation in connection with an FIR - The investigation is to find out the genuineness of those very documents on the basis of which the writ petition was moved - In· that factual context, total suppression in the writ petition of the fact that the petitioner gave as. 161 statement in that investigation is suppression of a very material fact -litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, Is not entitled to any relief, interim or final - The instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts - Administration of justice - Conduct of litigant - Relief.TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885:s.5 - Interception of telephone conversations - Duty of service provider - HELD: Though the service provider is to give assistance, as per request, to the law enforcement agencies and has to act on an urgent basis and in public interest, at the same time, he is equally duty bound to immediately verify the authenticity of such communication on a reasonable reading of the same, it appears to any person, acting bona fide, that such communication, with innumerable mistakes, falls clearly short of the tenor of a genuine official communication - In the instant case, the service provider has failed in discharging the said duty - Central Government must, therefore, frame certain statutory guidelines in this regard to prevent interception of telephone conversations on unauthorised communications - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. |
