The Supreme Court has held that an advocate who merely attests or identifies a person in an affidavit does not become liable if the statements written in that affidavit are true or false.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has observed that an advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become privy to the contents of the affidavit.
This case arose when a litigant and the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) filed complaints against Advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, alleging she vouched for the affidavit’s contents. The BCMG even referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.
The gravamen of the case, as set out in the complaint, was that the respondent-advocate could not have identified signatures of the deponent without assuming responsibility for the correctness of the statements contained in the body of the affidavit. As per the complainant, the deponent of the affidavit made incorrect statements and filed false documents, and thus, the advocate who identified the deponent by appending signatures on the same would be equally responsible for the offences of forgery, perjury, or cheating.
The respondent-advocate filed the subject writ petition before the High Court, and the High Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, held that the respondent-advocate at no point of time had sworn any affidavit in the suit, motion, interim application, or the chamber summons. The mere act of identifying the deponent in an affidavit filed with the chamber summons would not make the advocate responsible for the contents of the affidavit. Upon overall appreciation of the materials placed on record, the High Court found the allegations set out in the complaint to be wholly absurd and untenable.
The court held that the complaint filed by the petitioner, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, against the respondent-advocate was not only bereft of substance but was also founded on malicious and spiteful insinuations directed against the advocate who merely identified the opposite party in an affidavit.
Case Details
Case Title: Bar Council Of Maharashtra Versus Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (Civil) No (s). 27606 of 2023
Date: 24/09/2025
Read More: CBIC Notifies New Powers to DGARM Officials for Passenger Data Processing Across India
