Mystery over ghost litigant in SC deepens as 3rd lawyer distances himself from case | India News

NEW DELHI: The mystery around a ‘ghost litigant’ in Supreme Court deepened further as the third lawyer whose name appeared in the order sheet for the litigant told the court Tuesday that he was not involved in any way in the case and did not know how his name cropped up. Suspecting the role of some outsider and not lawyers, the bar associations sought a police inquiry and forensic examination of documents to catch the culprit which the apex court agreed to consider.In this murky case, a litigant managed to get a favourable order from SC after he propped up a ‘ghost’ opponent who told the court that he had compromised with the petitioner in a land dispute, which became the basis for the top court to quash orders passed by a Muzaffarpur trial court and Patna HC against the litigant. Five months later, the real opponent appeared and told the court that he had neither compromised with the petitioner nor engaged any lawyer to represent him before SC.The names of four lawyers were mentioned in the order out of which three are known names in the field of litigation but no one had heard of the fourth advocate. It came to light that the lawyer who allegedly represented the fake party did not practice law any more and he and his daughter, whose name was also there, were not even aware of the case. The court, thereafter, 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 did not do anything and he had nothing to do with 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.SCAORA president Vipin Nair said an inquiry was needed in the case and who would conduct it was very important. “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.It was also argued police should be asked to hold an inquiry. The court, after a brief hearing, said it would consider all aspects and pass an order. SC had in Dec passed the order after the ‘compromise agreement’ was placed before it and the order sheet of that day mentioned the names of the four advocates.