Could Have Led To Passing Of Wrong Order: Supreme Court Imposes Rs 25k Cost On Centre For Providing Incorrect Information
The ASG appearing for the Central Govt had made a submission on facts based on instructions, which he later clarified to be incorrect.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the Union of India for providing incorrect information regarding the list of officers travelling to Netherlands for an investigation.
The Apex Court was of the view that such conduct could have led to the passing of a wrong order.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi stated, “When the case was taken up on second call, he endorsed the statement made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the information which was given to him at the initial stage was not correct. This could have led to passing of a wrong order. For this conduct, we impose cost of 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on respondent No.5-Union of India.”
Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the Respondent.
At the time of hearing, the Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondent Union of India had informed the Court, based on instructions, that the State had not furnished the list of officers for travelling to Netherlands for investigation. However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requisite information was submitted by a letter dated November 7, 2025.
The Bench took note of the fact that the information which was given at the initial stage was not correct.
Thus, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the respondent Union of India.
Directing the payment to be made to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, the Bench ordered, “The amount of cost shall be deposited in the below mentioned bank account within four weeks from today.”
The matter pertains to a vigilance and corruption case involving former Kerala DGP Jacob Thomas.
Cause Title: Sathyan Naravoor v. Dr. Jacob Thomas IPS (Case No.: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1353/2022)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh, Kaleeswaram Raj, AOR Mohammed Sadique T.A., Advocates Thulasi K Raj, Aparna Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony
Respondent: Suryaprakash V.Raju, A.S.G, AOR A. Karthik, Advocates Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal, Veera Mahuli, Nanditha S