‘Ghost litigant’ case in Supreme Court: Third lawyer says 'not involved in any way'

The names of four lawyers were mentioned in the order.

The Supreme Court witnessed new twists in the mystery case related to a ‘ghost litigant’ who allegedly secured a favourable order by misleading the court with a fake compromise in a land dispute case.

According to a report by Times of India, a third lawyer whose name appeared in the order sheet for the litigant told the court on Tuesday that he was not involved in any way in the case and did not know how his name cropped up.

The bar associations sought a police inquiry and forensic examination of documents to catch the culprit which the apex court agreed to consider.

The court had earlier quashed orders passed by a Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court against the litigant based on a purported compromise.

However, later, the real party informed the court that no compromise had been entered into and that he had not authorised any lawyer to represent him before the top court.

The names of four lawyers were mentioned in the order. Out of these names, three are known names in the field of litigation but no one had heard of the fourth advocate. According to TOI, it was found that the lawyer who allegedly represented the fake party did not practice law anymore. In fact, he and he and his daughter, whose name was also there, were not even aware of the case.

The court then directed the third lawyer to appear before it.

Appearing before a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, advocate Ratan Lal told the court that he was not related to the case.

As all three lawyers refused their involvement in the case and the fourth lawyer remains untraced, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates On-Record Association (SCAORA) told the bench that lawyers were not involved in the wrongdoing.

According to the TOI report, Supreme Court Advocates On-Record Association (SCAORA) president Vipin Nair submitted that an inquiry was needed in the case. "The blame or charge of any wrongdoing can't be straightaway ascribed to AOR or lawyers since the pleadings indicate that the possibility of the petitioner engaging in fabrication can't be ruled out. A thorough enquiry is therefore necessary," Nair told the bench.

The court, after a brief hearing, said it would consider all aspects and pass an order.