Nail The Liars, Save The Innocent

Perjury is the bane of Indian judiciary, says Monica Kohli

Perjury - lying under oath - claims countless victims every day: delaying cases, shielding criminals and hurting the innocent. Yet despite the Supreme Court ruling time and again that courts should deal sternly with perjurers, little is ever done to secure their conviction. As a consequence, no lying litigant seriously believes that he/she will be punished for the crime.

One of the most dramatic and painful accounts of perjury concerns a water seller named Prem Chand who, 20 years ago, approached the Supreme Court for relief against a police order seeking his externment from Delhi. He told the court that police had used him as a stock witness in nearly 3,000 cases; and that when he declined to continue deposing as one, bogus cases were slapped on him to justify the police case.

Fearing strictures from the apex court the rogue cops withdrew the order - a rare case. How many poor defenceless people would do what Chand dared? Indeed even he took on the cops only after he was faced with illegal externment. What's equally shocking is that no court has so far ordered a re-investigation and retrial of the cases in which Chand was forced to become a "stock witness". This is one more blot on the Indian judicial system, whose first victims are poor people with no connections.

The case came to light at a national seminar titled 'Perspectives and Responses in the Indian Legal System' that New Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamia University and the NGO Common Man jointly organised last month to highlight these wrongs. In his inaugural address, Justice Aftab Alam of the Supreme Court said he was anguished that no steps had ever been taken to end the blight of perjury.

The Judiciary depends on inputs like written statements and evidence, which must be thoroughly scrutinised if the judgment is to be on merits. But if the peddling of falsehoods becomes the norm (the records on the file become the basic raw material in judicial processes) then what hope is there for the ordinary citizen? Remember that old saying - garbage in, garbage out? Meaning, wrong inputs can make it hard for even intelligent judges to come up with the right verdict. This can only be prevented if extra care is taken to ensure that lies are not recorded, thus saving both court time and preventing wrongful convictions.

Unscrupulous lawyers habitually persuade their clients to make false statements and submit fake affidavits. Yet even though some judges may be aware that perjury is being committed, and the Indian Penal Code has a provision to nail the liars, registration of perjury cases is extremely rare. The need, then, is for strong deterrents against perjurers and those who encourage them to lie under oath.

A major reason for delayed justice is the time-consuming job of recording the statements of witnesses and litigants - followed by their cross-examination. A good portion of these lost hours could be saved if fake witnesses were shown the door and prosecuted. Once the right precedents have been set, and they begin to see a real possibility of ending up in jail, they will think a hundred times before committing perjury. As things are, most of them go scot-free - imperiling both the judicial system and the country's economic development.

Ever since the Law Commission was established in 1954, crores of rupees have been spent to make justice simple, speedy, inexpensive and effective - but to no purpose. Because perjury has become a fact of judicial life, and nobody seriously believes that perjurers can be punished for making false statements. The result is that over 30 million cases are pending in the courts.

The organisers of the Jamia Millia seminar made some valuable recommendations which could go far in bringing about judicial reform. They want summary trials for perjurers - no matter how powerful or influential they be, and fast track convictions. In the UK, even the well known author, Lord Jeffrey Archer, was not spared.

In India, apart from some stray cases where judges ordered a witness or litigant to be criminally charged for perjury, there is little to show any action on the ground. But can they count when lies are told in thousands every day? The only well known case of conviction for perjury is that of Zaheera Sheikh, a poor, helpless, illiterate girl. In it - the Best Bakery case - the Supreme Court passed strictures against the Secretary Personnel in the Ministry of Home Affairs for submitting a false affidavit, but did not order registration of a criminal case.

The case concerning actor Shayan Munshi, who too allegedly lied under oath in the Jessica Lal case, is yet to come up.

A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court against the sudden transfer of MK Bezbaruah, who, as Director, Revenue Intelligence in 1998, was investigating a disproportionate assets case involving Jayalalithaa. The Secretary Personnel, Government of India, then submitted an affidavit saying that since Bezbaruah was an IAS officer of the Union Territory cadre when the Delhi government requested for his return, the Centre was obliged to order his transfer.

During the hearing of the PIL the apex court found that the Delhi government had made no such request, declared the affidavit to be false and ruled that Bezbaruah be reverted to the post of DRI. But the officer who signed the affidavit, and the minister on whose orders this criminal act was committed, were not booked for perjury. Considering that the law stipulates that a crime remains a crime no matter after how long it takes for it to surface, the official can still be tried to set the record straight. That would also send out a clear message to all - particularly the big fish - that nobody is above the law.




At any stage of the trial, if the trial judge finds that a litigant seeking "relief" has been untruthful or willfully withheld information, that person's case should be summarily thrown out.

(Monica Kohli is a lawyer at Jammu High Court)