Even Higher Courts do not take serious view of false affidavits submitted to affect judgements, Why?

Question

In some writ petitions ,the respondents submit false statements even with affidavits under oath to distort the facts trying to mislead the courts to attempt miscarriage of justice to petitioners. Inspite of pointing out the falsehood of the statements made and that too under affidavit, the High Court does not take the matter as serious. What sort of justice can be expected from the court?

Even after the petitioner submits the documents issued by the responds along with his affidavit to prove the false hood of statements of respondents made in return,the courts are lukewarm to the allegation of prejury levelled by petitioner on respondents. The lawyers can reply better as to why and how this happens and how the courts can be compelled for action.

Answer 1

I have faced this same problem. In my matter, I filed an Application u/S.340CrPC asking the Court to take action against my opponent for Perjury. I have cited Supreme Court judgments : Suo moto vs Karuppan and Arivandandam vs Satyapal, which specifically direct the lower courts to deal with perjury in a severe manner. Another good judgment to cite along with perjury applications is Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath - fraud on court. As mine is a Civil matter being a suit filed against me, I have also made an Application u/O.7 R.11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on these grounds. My applications are still pending; the previous judge was inclined to view it very seriously but then she got transferred and the present judge does not seem very interested but because he has to dispose of my Application, he grudgingly said he will hear it simultaneously with the main matter. Then he gave a very long date, probably to avoid having to apply his mind ! However, I will not let go and will take this up to the next level if I have to. I am sure that the Bombay High Court will take it seriously. I appear in person. Lawyers will never encourage clients to file perjury applications because most of them make false and misleading statements in affidavits prepared for their clients, as a matter of routine.

Answer 2

High courts first only consider the evidence most favorable to the non-moving party (respondents), and second to not rehash any of the trial, they only decide if the lower court made a reversible error of law. Affidavits that are distorted in the facts would be a factual issue for the jury to decide, so it would be an error of fact, not of law.

Answer 3

I have a better solution. We should put an end to immigration, and an end to welfare. Why are we providing for idle people? It has been known, forever that those that get free stuff do not contribute to society. I grew up poor. I mean poor like most of you have never seen. I have what I have today because I busted my butt. I went into the military and did my time during the first desert storm. I took my military benefits, and went to school, while I worked two jobs. I did this because I wanted to get a nice salaried white collar job. I never received a cent of assistance of any kind. You are correct about lazy awful parents. I have seen many in my days. If there is a good welfare parent out there, I have never met them.

Answer 4

Because prejury is generally a misdemeanor offense. If the court is satisfied that even with some false testimony they have enough truthful information to render a verdict they will do so.

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

No doubt Perjury is a punishable offence but in order to prove of perjury not only sufficient evidence to prove it false is required by the prosecution but the evidence regarding that the false statement given on oath was known to the person giving it that the fact it was false. Since the giving of statement on oath in the form of Affidavits come under the category of perjury there should be such evidence that shows that the same person had given a different affidavit or had stated on oath statement just the opposite to what he stated in the present affidavit for which a offence of perjury is being prayed against him. When such evidence is brought before any court whether lower court or High Court the court will definitely move for the prosecution of such an offender. The Courts even issue notice to the person who is found prima facie of purposely making false statement. A recent example is the Jessica Lal Murder case where High Court of Delhi issued notices for perjury to the various witnesses who retracted from there original statements made during the investigation stage. As far taking no notice of any falsehood of the statements made on oath in the form of affidavit is concerned either bring before the concerned High court sufficient evidence of the falsehood as I explained above, or file a formal complaint to the High court showing them that a prima facie case of perjury exist in the pending matter before it, merely pointing this at the time of arguments will not solve your problem, because after all whenever a matter is contested both the parties file affidavits in support of their case one of which is correct & other not, if the High courts start taking action against each & every affidavit made in a case or all cases those failed before them then it will amount to unlimited number of such cases of perjury that will not only increase the number of litigations but also a never ending process of litigation. High courts take notice of all application made to them hence its best advised to move a formal application complaining of perjury. If the attitude of the Court is lukewarm its so because a formal application/complaint regarding the prima facie case of perjury is not made to it, simply relying on few documents won't solve your problem, doesn't this thing strike the mind of your learned advocate that he is supposed to make a formal application under section 195, 340 of the criminal procedure code,1973 to the concerned court, that they should file a formal complaint under section 193 Indian Penal Code for perjury against the person who filed false affidavit, M I supposed to tell all this to you that also free of cost where as you are paying your advocate in thousands.

Answer 6

None can check all, none can hear all. To error is human. All want short cut. Many times, I answer without reading question in detail.

Answer 7

Heavy work load on courts .