The Allahabad High Court has held that an advocate who withholds material facts within his knowledge and presses a contrary position before the Court is guilty of active concealment which interferes with the administration of justice. It held that such conduct must be distinguished from a statement made in ignorance of the true position, which does not attract the same consequence.

The distinction was drawn while examining the conduct of two advocates on whose common assertion the Court had earlier directed elections of a college committee of management to be held on a particular electoral list.

Justice Siddharth Nandan held,

“There is a distinction between active concealment and mere inadvertence or wrong interpretation of the factual or the legal position. Once the petitioner has approached this Court, he is expected to disclose all relevant facts and material which may constitute a bundle of fact giving rise to a cause of action.”

Explaining the two categories, the Court observed,

“The active concealment of fact means a truth is sought to be hidden on purpose to mislead the court; but however statement in ignorance means you share false information by mistake because you do not know the real truth.”

By order dated 5^th May 2026, the Court had disposed of a writ petition by directing the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections of Nehru Vidyapeeth Intermediate College, Reotipur, Ghazipur within two months. Counsel for both sides having stated that the electoral college used at the election said to have been held in 2009 was undisputed, the Court directed that the said list be taken into consideration.

Shiv Shankar Singh, arrayed as respondent no. 6 in that petition, filed a review application claiming to be the elected Manager and alleging that the petition had been moved with ulterior motive. He stated on oath that he had never given a vakalatnama to any counsel to appear for him, and had never instructed anyone to file a caveat application on his behalf.

The caveat had been filed by Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate. His stand was that the signature on the vakalatnama had been verified by his clerk and not by him. He stated that the applicant and his nephew Bhola Yadav had come to his office, handed over a signed vakalatnama and paid Rs. 2,500 as fee. Bhola Yadav supported that account on affidavit; the applicant did not.

Noting that the applicant had been engaging R.C. Dwivedi since 2015, the Court referred the disputed signatures to a signature expert. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 27^th July 2026 found that neither the signature on the vakalatnama filed with the caveat, nor the admitted signatures on vakalatnama in two other petitions, matched the sample signatures or those in the applicant's bank records. No objection was filed and the report attained finality.

Holding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his signature was forged, the Court observed,

“..the review application was filed only to recall an order which may not be suiting the applicants in the review application and in the process an Advocate who was representing the client for the last more than a decade has been put in the spot; and his services as an officer of the Court have been put in jeopardy.”

On the assertion that the 2009 election was undisputed, the Court found that the Joint Director of Education had by order dated 16^th April 2016 held those elections doubtful and directed fresh elections, and the writ petition challenging that order was dismissed as infructuous by consent, leaving it final. Smt. Malti Rai, the then District Inspector of Schools said to have held the elections, had written to the Joint Director on 23^rd July 2016 denying she conducted them.

The Court held that Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, who had been representing the petitioner over a period of time, could not plead ignorance of these materials, and he and his client were equally responsible for asserting that the last undisputed election was held on 25^th October 2009.

“..this Court has no hesitation in holding that there was an active concealment of fact on the part of Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and his client, which lead to the interference with the administration of justice.”

The Court further held that,

“Legal profession in India has always been regarded as a noble profession and Advocates have always been regarded primarily as an "officer of the Court" than mere agents of their clients; and the dual responsibility which is casted upon an Advocate is much higher than merely a professional responsibility.”

“ In case there is a breach of the said responsibility, it shall strike at the very foundation of the administration of justice and destroying the public confidence in the legal system. There has never been a dearth of unscrupulous litigants who try to maneuver their way through the process of the Court, without hesitating or blinking for a moment, in case the outcome suits their mis-endeavours.”

As regards R.C. Dwivedi, the Court held that he had merely accepted the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioner, the documents showing the 2009 election to be doubtful having never been placed on record, and his conduct amounted neither to active concealment nor to an expression of falsehood. His unconditional apology for the procedural lapses in his office was accepted.

On the vakalatnama, the Court held,

“The recognition of appearance of an Advocate by the Court is premised entirely upon the existence of a valid and subsisting Vakalatnama. The filing of a Vakalatnama without the knowledge or consent of the party purportedly represented, constitutes a misrepresentation to the Court.”

The Court declined to refer the matter to the Bar Council or to invoke its contempt jurisdiction, which it held must be exercised sparingly, but imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 each on the petitioner and on respondent no. 6 for abusing the process of the Court, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within one month, failing which the Registrar General was directed to initiate contempt proceedings.

Noting that Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 allows a caveat to be lodged on a mere application without a supporting affidavit, the Court held the procedure open to abuse and directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side to consider amending the Rule to require an affidavit of the applicant along with the caveat application.

Accordingly, holding that the 2009 election could not be said to be undisputed, the Court reviewed and recalled its order dated 5^th May 2026 in exercise of its inherent powers, and directed that the matter be placed before the Court having jurisdiction for further adjudication.

Case Title: Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638

Counsel for Applicant: Akshay Raghuvanshi, B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi

Counsel for Opposite Party: C.S.C., Suresh Chandra Dwivedi

Click Here To Read/Download Order