The Supreme Court has ruled that an advocate who only attests or identifies the deponent of an affidavit cannot be held accountable for the truthfulness of its contents. The Court dismissed a special leave petition against Mumbai-based lawyer Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, calling the allegations against her “absurd, untenable and malicious.”
The complaint was filed by advocate and former lecturer Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, who was engaged in a long-running dispute with Ismail Yusuf Junior College. He alleged that by identifying the deponent of an affidavit in a civil suit, Shastri had effectively endorsed false statements and was liable for offences like perjury, forgery, and cheating. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) registered the complaint and referred it for disciplinary inquiry.
The Bombay High Court, however, quashed the complaint in August 2023, clarifying that Shastri had not sworn the affidavit but had only identified the deponent. Upholding this, the Supreme Court observed that merely attesting an affidavit does not make an advocate privy to its content. It held that the complaint was baseless and driven by malice.
The Court further criticised BCMG for pursuing such a complaint, calling its actions “illegal” and “perverse,” which resulted in the wrongful harassment of the advocate. To remedy this, the bench ordered both Bhakad and BCMG to pay ₹50,000 each as costs—amounting to ₹1 lakh—to be deposited with the Bombay High Court registry within four weeks and transferred to Shastri.
