The Supreme Court.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: Highlighting the principle that fraud and Justice never dwell together, the Supreme Court on Monday said any litigant who is guilty of inhibition before the court should not bear the fruit and benefit of its orders.
"Fraud and collusion vitiate the most solemn precedent in any civilized jurisprudence; and that fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). This maxim has never lost its lustre over the centuries,” a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
The top court had declared as per incuriam its May 13, 2022 judgment by Justices Ajay Rastogi (retired) and Vikram Nath – allowing 11 accused who raped Bilkis Bano, and murdered her family, during the 2002 Godhra riots, to file a remission plea before the Gujarat government.
“Any litigant who is guilty of inhibition before the court should not bear the fruit and benefit of the court’s orders. This court has also held that fraud is an act of deliberation with a desire to secure something which is otherwise not due. Fraud is practiced with an intention to secure undue advantage. Thus, an act of fraud on courts must be viewed seriously," the bench said.
The bench said while suppression of a material document would amount to a fraud on the court, suppression of material facts vital to the decision to be rendered by a court of law is equally serious.
“Thus, once it is held that there was fraud in judicial proceedings all advantages gained as a result of it have to be withdrawn. In such an eventuality, doctrine of res judicata or doctrine of binding precedent would not be attracted since an order obtained by fraud is non est in the eye of law,” the bench said.
The 2022 judgment is hit by fraud and is a nullity and non est in the eye of law and therefore cannot be given effect to and hence, all proceedings pursuant to the said order are vitiated, the bench held.
“It is trite that fraud vitiates everything. It is a settled proposition of law that fraud avoids all judicial act. Further, no judgment of a court, no order of a minister would be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud,” the bench said.