Concealment of facts amounts to playing fraud upon Court: HC

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh imposed as costs Rs 50000 on some petitioners for approaching it with tainted hands, saying suppression or concealment of material facts amounts to playing fraud upon the Court.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition, observing that “a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court must come with clean hands, clean mind and complete candour, and is under a bounden obligation to disclose all material facts which have a bearing on the adjudication of the lis (plea)” 

In their petition filed by Ghulam Muhammad Shekh and two others under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners had challenged Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam’s order dated March 24, 2026, whereby Tehsildar, Budgam had been directed to implement order dated June 4, 2025, besides seeking other reliefs.

The Court noted that the petitioners had already approached the Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam by filing an application seeking suspension of the order dated March 24, 2026 and the trial court upon hearing both sides had already passed an order dated April 6, 2026, whereby, the operation and execution of the impugned order had already been stayed.

“Thus, the grievance projected in the present petition already stands redressed by the competent court,” the court said.

The Court underscored that the duty to disclose is absolute, and extends not only to facts which support the case of the party, but equally to those which are averse to it.  “Any attempt to mislead the court strikes at the very root of the administration of justice and undermines the confidence reposed in judicial proceedings”. 

Once, the execution of the impugned order already stood stayed by the Court concerned, there was no occasion for the petitioners to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the same order, the court said 

“The filing of the present petition, therefore, appears to be wholly unnecessary and misconceived,” it added. 

The Court held that “a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or approaches the Court with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final”. 

“This Court is not only justified in declining relief but is duty-bound to dismiss such proceedings with exemplary costs, so as to deprecate such practice and to preserve the judicial sanctity”. 

The Court observed that petition was an abuse of the process of law and utterly misconceived and devoid of any merit. It, accordingly, dismissed the same and imposed Rs 50,000 costs on the petitioners to be deposited by the petitioners with the Court’s Registry within two weeks.