The Madras High Court has ruled that government officials who provide false information to lawyers representing the state can be held in contempt of court, as such actions interfere with the administration of justice.
A bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and B Pugalendhi made the observation while hearing a petition filed by two residents of Thuvarankurichi village in Tiruchirappalli district. The petitioners, J Abdul Malik and J Siddiq Ali, alleged that a water channel had been blocked and encroached upon, seeking directions to remove the encroachments in Sakkiliyankulam channel and Karanthapadikulam.
Court finds discrepancies in revenue records
During the hearing, the government advocate conceded that two survey numbers—68 and 69/2—were water bodies. However, based on written instructions from the Tahsildar of Marungapuri Taluk, the government submitted that Survey No. 33/1 was privately owned patta land.
The petitioners then presented the court with an extract from the A-Register, a revenue record, which showed that Survey No. 33/1 was classified as a water spread area, or Neerpidipu. The court clarified that while such land could also be patta land, the rights of the patta holder were limited in these cases.
The bench directed authorities to maintain the land’s character as a water spread area and ordered the removal of encroachments after giving notice to the alleged encroachers. The process must be completed within four months.
Related: Kejriwal aide removed critical judge remarks court told
Altered documents raise contempt concerns
The court did not stop there. It found that while the original A-Register contained a remark identifying Survey No. 33/1 as a water spread area, the photocopy provided to the government advocate had a blank remarks column. The judges observed that the entry appeared to have been concealed, calling it an attempt to mislead the court.
“Any false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice. It would constitute contempt of Court,” the bench stated. The court noted that judges often rely on submissions from government lawyers, who in turn depend on instructions from officials.
As a result, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to seek an explanation from the Tahsildar of Marungapuri Taluk. The report will be placed before the bench on August 6, after which the court will decide whether to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.
The case highlights the risks of tampering with official records, particularly when those records form the basis of legal arguments. If officials knowingly suppress or alter information, it could undermine not just individual cases but the broader trust in the judicial process. The court’s next steps may set a precedent for how such misconduct is addressed in the future.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate RR Kannan, while Government Advocate P Rajagopalan appeared for the state authorities.
