It is a common experience that in proceedings before Judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, in certain cases, the appearing advocates and authorised representatives are asked to put their signatures on blank order-sheets. The authorities or their readers record the orders as per their convenience. This process though not authorised by the rule of law, is very common. The practice shows utmost faith in authority that they will not misuse the discretion.

The problem occurs when the authorities makes reverse orders. In a case, the presiding judge adjourned the case because he was unable to pass judgement, but his order-sheet reflected that parties have sought times for further arguments. In another case, an Income Tax Authority had opted signature of advocates and recorded arguments which was not made before him. In yet another case, a magistrate recorded in blank order-sheet that separate order is being passed before signing order-sheet, but order was passed after one day.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra in the case of Samagra Mahila Vikas Samiti vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2014) 23 Income Tax Judgement 204 has made observation as follows –

“The advocates/members of bar are recognized as officers of the court. Therefore, they are expected to maintain their status and decorum in the court. They are not expected to sign blank order-sheet as admitted by Shri S.M. Sinha, Advocate. Shri S.M. Sinha, Advocate is, therefore, directed not to indulge in any type of malpractice in future otherwise his conduct would have been reported to the State Bar Council for taking disciplinary action against him as per law.”

Another aspect of this approach is very serious. In Indian Penal Code, 1890, Chapter XVIII based on offences relating to documents and other property marks. In certain cases, opting signature of advocates and / or parties on blank order-sheet and thereafter writing, typing or printing order comes within Forgery as defined in Section 463 of Indian Penal Code. In the Rule of Law, no one is superior than law. The act of a judicial authority directing the advocate to sign a blank order-sheet is itself a type of criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

The collapse of under-construction buildings is a common feature in India. This problem is the result of many reasons including corruption, gross-negligence and gross-violation of law. Such collapses cause financial and other losses to builders and owners. In turn, this is a loss to national properties. The accidents during building and other construction works are also very common. They may be singular but creates multiple consequences. Such accidents are big challenges for the society and even humanity. It is difficult to understand why the collapse of building is taken seriously than the deaths of building workers during the course of employments.

Needless to mention it is a pious obligation and constitutional duty of the State to secure to all workers a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure. In this regard, Article 43 of the Constitution of India must be remembered. Not only that, the directive principle proposes the safety and welfare of the workers but Article 21 of the Constitution directs that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to established by law.

Whether deprivation of life and health of building workers by making violation of safety provision of law does not come within the purview of breach of fundamental rights of workers? Whether employers or builders and law enforcement authorities of the State cannot be held guilty for the violation of fundamental rights in such accident cases?

The parliament in 1970 enacted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In 1976 another important law, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 was enacted. Two more important legislations came into force i.e. the Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the Building & Other Construction Workers Cess Act, 1996 which cover maximum issues relating to building workers.

Though these legislations are very effective measures to address the safety and welfare matters but implementation of these provisions is very slow. In other words, the executive performance of the State shows that the problem of building workers’ health and safety is beyond control. Particularly in Madhya Pradesh, the building workers work in hazardous situations. The migrated, poor and unskilled building workers are exploited and this can be witnessed in any city or town.

The Madhya Pradesh Building and Other Construction (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 imposes various responsibilities on different officers of the Labour Department, the Industrial Health and Safety Department, the Police Department and the District Administration. But in these departments, the officers are not genuinely and seriously interested in addressing the issues of building workers. It is most unfortunate that there is no co-ordination between the aforementioned departments of the State. Due to this, all the central laws mentioned above only have ornamental values.

The definition of Human Rights as engrafted in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (herein after “the Act”) is very vast. It says, “Human Rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International covenants and enforceable by courts in India. According to this definition, every constitutional or statutory right comes within the purview of Human Rights.

In every case of violation of Human Rights, the general supposition is to move the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or State Human Rights Commissions for appropriate remedies. Owing to this, the number of cases that are pending before the Human Rights Commissions is very high. According to the official website (nhrc.nic.in) of National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, the total number of pending cases was 29759 in November 2013. In the State of Karnataka, approximately 28000 cases were pending for disposal before the State Human Right Commission at the end of 2013.

It is pertinent to mention that in the Act, an effective and alternative remedy is available for investigation and trial of offences relating to the Human Rights. Section 30 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Human Right Courts. Most of the states have issued notifications in this regard and constituted and notified for the each district a court of session to be a Human Rights Court. In Madhya Pradesh too, there is a very old notification in this regard.

An application under section 30 of the Act could be filed before a Human Right Court on the basis of any of the following reasons:

1)      At present, the complaints are being dealt by the Human Rights Commissions, which are overburdened and take long time in disposing cases pending before them. In the larger public interest, by applying the doctrine of “speedy trial”, all cases pertaining to violation of Human Rights must be decided without any unnecessary delay. The Human Right Courts are the better instrumentalities to achieve this motive.

2)      It is far better to make joint efforts to deal with the problems relating to violation of Human Rights.

3)      Section 36 of the Act prescribes that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter after expiry of one year from the date of incident. This limitation is applicable only for proceedings before Commissions and not for Human Right Courts.

4)      No statutory remedy is provided against the direction, order or report issued by Human Rights Commissions, but the order passed by the Human Right Court can be challenged under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5)      Under Section 31 of the Act, it is mandatory that in Human Rights Courts, the applicants shall have the assistance of Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Governments.

The concept of Public Interest Litigation i.e. PIL has been developed with a great motive to raise issues related to public welfare. It is a constitutional right of the citizens of India and an effective instrument to serve the public. Unfortunately, some of us use this instrument to espouse our own vested interests. Resultantly, the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman & MD.BPL. Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja & Ors, (2003) 8 SCC 576 cautioned that the conduct of the petitioners filing Public Interest Litigation is very crucial and the court should circumspect in entertaining any challenge at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners.

In this context, recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh presided by Chief Justice Mr. A. M. Khanvilkar and Justice Mr. Ajit Singh, decided Writ Petition No. 1967/2006 and passed remarkable order dated 28.11.2013 in the case of Devendra Prakash Mishra and another vs. State of M.P. The petitioners, who are advocates,had prayed for declaration and removal of construction made by private respondent nos. 6 and 7. They had also sought to issue directions to the state authorities in this regard. The petitioners had further prayed to appoint independent agency out of state to enquire into the matter.

After perusal of records and pleadings, the Hon’ble High Court found that the allegations made in the petition were baseless. It was also revealed that the said petition was filed to espouse personal interest out of vengeance. It was revealed that the father of petitioner no. 1 had filed a suit before a civil court asserting easementary rights in the subject land owned and possessed by respondent nos. 6 and 7, which eventually came to be dismissed as withdrawn on the finding that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest therein. The father of the petitioner no. 1 sought liberty from the civil court to resort to the writ petition but, instead, had put up the petitioner no. 1, his son, to pursue the same cause of action in the name of Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner no. 2 had been made namesake petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the petition is devoid of merits and dismissed the same with exemplary cost, quantified at Rupees 5 lacs, to be paid to the respondents within six weeks from the date of the order. The above judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court is an outstanding precedent in the field of Public Interest Litigation.

In Jurisprudence, there is a Latin proverb, which reads as, “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” or “fraud and justice never dwell together”. This is the reason why in statute books the parties, who have suffered for loss or injury caused by other party’s fraud or deceit, are given special concession up to certain limits.

The term “Fraud” is categorically defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (herein after referred to as “the Contract Act”. Section 17 of the Contract Act says, “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-

(1)  the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true;

(2)  the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

(3)  a promise made without any intention of performing it;

(4)  any other act fitted to deceive; or

(5)  any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.

Furthermore, Section 19 of the Contract Act provides that “When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement of a contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representation made had been true.”

In another important procedural statute, the Limitation Act, 1963 (herein after referred to as “the Limitation Act”), the effect of fraud is incorporated for exemption of limitation to initiate legal proceedings. Section 17 of the Limitation Act says, “where it the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act –

a-    the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or

b-    the knowledge of the right or title, on which a suit or application is founded, is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or

c-     the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or

d-    where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him;

the period of limitation shall begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it.

The Apex Court of India, in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114, observed that the truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system, which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has brought in drastic changes in our value system.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others v. Govt. of A.P. and Others (2007) 4 SCC 221, reiterated the principles propounded in the earlier judgment S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 1994 SCC (1) 1, in which was observed the following:

“The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of this court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can summarily throw out at any stage of the litigation”.