Fraus Et Jus Nunquam Cohabitant: Fraud on Court, Suppression of Facts & Exemplary Costs in Indian Judiciary

Introduction

The ancient Latin maxim “Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” — “fraud and justice never dwell together” — represents a foundational principle of jurisprudence: that fraud and law cannot co-exist, and that the integrity of judicial proceedings is indispensable to the administration of justice.

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, including the Allahabad High Court, has consistently invoked this doctrine to ensure that the judicial process is not subverted by unscrupulous parties through fraud, deceit, or the deliberate suppression of material facts. This article undertakes a comprehensive examination of the application of this maxim through landmark judgments, with particular emphasis on the imposition of exemplary costs on parties who deliberately suppress material facts or play fraud upon the court.

The principle is closely intertwined with the equitable doctrine of “clean hands” — he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Courts have consistently held that a litigant who withholds, conceals, or suppresses material facts cannot claim the equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction of the court and deserves no relief and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

The Legal Foundation: Understanding the Maxim

1. The Latin Maxims and Their Meaning

The primary maxim, Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant, translates directly as “Fraud and Justice never dwell together.” It fundamentally asserts that fraudulent actions cannot coexist with the principles of justice or law. The maxim emphasizes that the legal system cannot uphold or enforce laws when deceit, falsehood, or suppression of material facts is present.

Two companion maxims reinforce this foundational principle:

• “Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent” — Fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man.
• “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” — Suppression of truth is equivalent to suggestion of falsehood.

Together, these three maxims establish a complete doctrine:

• Fraud vitiates all proceedings.
• No person can benefit from their own fraudulent conduct.
• Suppressing the truth is morally and legally equivalent to stating a falsehood.

These principles have been adopted by the Indian judiciary and applied with increasing vigour in modern times.

2. What Constitutes “Fraud on the Court”

Courts have defined fraud on the court broadly to encompass:

• An act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another.
• A deception in order to gain by another’s loss.
• Cheating intended to obtain an undue advantage.
• Suppression or concealment of material facts that would influence the court’s decision.
• Withholding of vital documents to gain advantage over the opposite party.
• Misrepresentation of facts in petitions, affidavits, or pleadings.
• Concealment of prior litigation or adverse orders from the court.
• Playing “hide and seek” with facts — selecting only favourable facts for disclosure.

3. What Constitutes a “Material” Fact

A fact is “material” if its disclosure would or might reasonably affect the court’s decision to grant relief. Courts have held that a litigant cannot be the sole judge of the materiality of a fact. When in doubt, full disclosure is the only safe course. The test is whether a reasonable court, if apprised of the suppressed fact, would or might have taken a different view.

Quick Reference Summary

Concept	Meaning	Legal Consequence
Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant	Fraud and justice never dwell together	Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings
Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent	Fraud and deceit excuse no one	No benefit from fraudulent conduct
Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi	Suppression of truth equals falsehood	Suppression treated as misrepresentation
Material Fact	A fact that may influence judicial decision	Non-disclosure may result in dismissal

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments

1. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 [SC–SPCN–1994] Background And Facts This landmark judgment stands as the cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence on fraud and suppression of material facts. Jagannath had purchased properties at a court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar, the decree-holder. By a registered release deed dated November 25, 1945, Jagannath relinquished all his rights in the property in favour of Chunilal Sowcar. Subsequently, the judgment-debtors (appellants) paid the total decretal amount to Chunilal Sowcar. The decree-holder was therefore no longer entitled to the property. Without disclosing that he had executed the release deed in favour of Chunilal Sowcar — a document of critical materiality — Jagannath filed a suit for partition of the property and obtained a preliminary decree. The appellants only discovered the release deed at the stage of the final decree application. The question before the Supreme Court was whether a decree obtained through suppression of such a vital document could stand. Key Judicial Pronouncements “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.” [SC–SPCN–1994] “A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” [SC–SPCN–1994] “The principle of ‘finality of litigation’ cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of this court is being abused. A person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” [SC–SPCN–1994] Legal Principles Established
   • A judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in law
   • Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal
   • Fraudulent judgments can be challenged even in collateral proceedings
   • Litigants are bound to produce all documents relevant to litigation
   • Withholding a vital document amounts to fraud on court
   • The principle of finality of litigation cannot protect fraudulent proceedings
   • A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court
2. Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2592 [SC–IB–1996] This judgment reinforced and significantly expanded the principles laid down in Chengalvaraya Naidu by directly invoking the Latin maxim and clarifying the inherent powers of courts to recall judgments obtained by fraud. Key Judicial Pronouncements “The Authorities, be they Constitutional, Statutory or Administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). It has been repeatedly said that Fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).” [SC–IB–1996] “No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” [SC–IB–1996] “The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on court. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud.” [SC–IB–1996] Significance
   • Directly applied the Latin maxim Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant in the Indian context
   • Confirmed that all authorities — constitutional, statutory, or administrative — can recall decisions obtained by fraud
   • Grounded the power to recall fraudulent judgments in Section 151 CPC as an inherent power of courts
3. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 [SC–AVP–2007] Key Judicial Pronouncements “It is a fundamental principle of law that a judgment, order, or award obtained by fraud is a nullity. Fraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine pure maxim of equity. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of this court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” [SC–AVP–2007] The Court further observed that fraud can be of an infinite variety — it may be open, concealed, or by way of suppression, and courts must be alert to all its manifestations. The doctrine must be applied with equal force whether the fraud is perpetrated in the original proceedings or in appellate or review proceedings.  
4. Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 [SC–DS–2010] Key Judicial Pronouncements “The truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system, which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has brought in drastic changes in our value system. It is a matter of common experience that a large number of false cases are filed in the courts of law and people do not feel any compunction in taking recourse to falsehood in courts.” [SC–DS–2010] The Court emphasised that truthfulness is not merely a legal requirement but a moral obligation of every litigant, and that the courts must take a stern view of litigants who pollute the stream of justice through falsehood and suppression. The judgment is also a call to arms for courts at all levels to impose deterrent costs to discourage dishonest litigation.  
5. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581 (decision dated 14 March 2000) Background And Context The Insurance Company asserted that “a rank fraud” had been played by claimants to obtain compensation awards from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and complained that both the Tribunal and the High Court declined to look into the allegation on the premise that the Tribunal had no power to recall the award. [1] Key Judicial Pronouncements “Fraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) … is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.” [1] The Court further cautioned that if High Courts refuse even to examine contentions of fraud, the plenary power conferred by the Constitution may become illusory and public faith in the courts would corrode. [1] Doctrinal Significance
   • Courts and tribunals should not shut the door on allegations of fraud as a mere technicality of review
   • They must consider whether recall/setting aside is warranted to prevent unjust enrichment through fraud
6. Summary Of Subsequent Supreme Court Authorities Case Core Principle Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319 Fraud vitiates every solemn act; fraud undermines administration of justice. Vijay Shekhar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 666 Fraud on power and abuse of process render proceedings unsustainable. Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325 Fraud vitiates proceedings; natural justice is contextual. State of A.P. & Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149 Fraud defeats procedural finality. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 605 Fraud = deceit + injury; intention to deceive is core element. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 11 SCC 18 Fraud includes concealment and reckless misrepresentation. Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 99 Status/benefits cannot survive if foundational facts are fraudulent. Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 383 Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings. Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 588 Fraud is deliberate deception; orders obtained by fraud cannot stand. Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 No legal right can vest by fraud in service law. Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363 Suppression in verification process justifies termination. State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 732 Fraudulent certification cannot be immunised. Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 884 Fraud unravels everything; doctrine of merger inapplicable when fraud established.

Modern Restatement (2025 Authority)

The Court reaffirmed that nothing obtained by fraud can be sustained, and that procedural technicalities cannot be used as shackles once the Court concludes it has been tricked by fraud. It reiterated that even judgments of the highest court are nullities if obtained by fraud, and that such decrees can be challenged in collateral proceedings.

Select High Court Decisions Outside Allahabad High Court

While this article focuses in detail on the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, the following High Court authorities (from distinct jurisdictions) reaffirm the same doctrinal propositions in diverse applied contexts.

1. Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) (Decision Dated 27 July 2010) [18] Key Observations
   • The Bombay High Court reiterated that orders obtained by fraud can be recalled because “fraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)” and that “fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).” [18]
   • It further noted that once fraud is established, even natural justice requirements may not be insisted upon in the manner that would protect fraudulent benefit, citing Supreme Court authorities in service/caste jurisprudence. [18]
2. Jai Kishun Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (Jharkhand High Court) (Decision Dated 3 January 2006) [19] Context In a matter concerning a freedom fighter pension claim alleged to have been obtained by misrepresentation, the High Court rejected a plea to prevent recovery, holding that fraud and justice cannot coexist. [19] Key Observation
   • The Court emphasised that directions that effectively protect pension obtained through “fraud and misrepresentation” would amount to giving a “premium on fraud, misrepresentation and corruption,” and that the Court would not be a party to that. [19]
3. Mohan Lal Kadwasra v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) (Decision Dated 8 January 2015) [20] Context And Relevance
   • This decision (arising in a recruitment/service dispute context) repeats that the maxim “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” continues to dwell in service law jurisprudence.
   • It reiterates that fraud/misrepresentation cannot create enforceable rights in public employment. [20]
4. Bimal Prosad Jana v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) (Decision Dated 14 July 2000) Context And Relevance
   • This decision (as located in accessible case-law digest entries) records that the Court relied upon Supreme Court fraud jurisprudence including the propositions that:
     1. fraud and justice never dwell together, and
     2. courts should not permit a party to reap benefits of his own fraud at the cost of another’s fair opportunity. [21]

Accessibility Note

(Accessibility note: full-text retrieval of this 2000 Calcutta High Court decision could not be completed from open-access court repositories within the present tool constraints; accordingly, the above is confined to digest-accessible material, without supplementation.) [22]

---

Comparative Overview Of Doctrinal Position

Case	High Court	Core Principle Reaffirmed	Context
Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 (2010)	Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)	Fraud vitiates judicial orders; fraud and justice cannot coexist	Caste certificate scrutiny / service law
Jai Kishun Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2006)	Jharkhand High Court	No protection for benefits obtained by fraud or misrepresentation	Freedom fighter pension claim
Mohan Lal Kadwasra v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2015)	Rajasthan High Court	Fraud cannot create enforceable rights in public employment	Recruitment / service dispute
Bimal Prosad Jana v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2000)	Calcutta High Court	Courts will not permit a party to benefit from his own fraud	Fraud jurisprudence (digest-based reference)

Allahabad High Court: Single Bench Decisions On Exemplary Costs

The Allahabad High Court has been particularly vigilant in penalising parties who suppress material facts or play fraud on the court through the imposition of substantial exemplary costs. The following cases illustrate this trend.

---

Sunita Nishad v. State of U.P. and Others (2025)

Neutral Citation	Cost Imposed	Reference
2025:AHC:9888	₹25,00,000	[AHC–SN–2025]

In this decision, Justice Sangeeta Chandra[1] imposed exemplary costs of ₹25,00,000 on the petitioners for deliberate suppression of material facts and misrepresentation in SARFAESI litigation. The petitioners, who had executed mortgage documents to secure an agricultural loan of ₹90,00,000, attempted to disown their role as guarantors and invoked writ jurisdiction without candidly disclosing their liability. The Court found that the writ process had been abused to delay lawful possession to the auction purchaser since 2017. [AHC–SN–2025]

---

Noor Hasan v. State of U.P. and Others (2021)

Case Details	Cost Imposed	Reference
Writ-C No. 15696 of 2020 (Order dated 18 January 2021)	₹3,00,000	[AHC–NH–2021]

In this case, the petitioner repeatedly approached the Court on the same cause of action despite three prior dismissals, and the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,00,000, describing the conduct as a blatant abuse of process. This order is frequently cited in subsequent Allahabad High Court decisions as a deterrent against repeated litigation and suppression of prior judicial history. [AHC–NH–2021]

---

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others (2025)

Case Type	Cost Imposed	Reference
Public Interest Litigation (Order dated 25 July 2025)	₹15,000	[AHC–MK–2025]

In this PIL, Justice Kshitij Shailendra[4] held that concealment of prior litigation and relevant facts amounts to playing fraud on the court. The Court relied on the principles that no litigant is permitted to play “hide and seek” with the court and that suppression of truth is equivalent to suggesting falsehood. [AHC–MK–2025]

---

Keshav Prasad and Others v. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow (2024)

Bench	Cost Imposed	Reference
Lucknow Bench (2024:AHC-LKO:65819)	₹50,000	[AHC–KP–2024]

In this case, Justice Jaspreet Singh[5] imposed costs of ₹50,000 for deliberate concealment of earlier petitions and adverse background in proceedings arising from consolidation litigation, emphasising that concealment of prior rounds of litigation and adverse findings is a serious abuse of writ jurisdiction. [AHC–KP–2024]

---

U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board v. … (2025)

Bench	Cost Imposed	Reference
Lucknow Bench	₹15,000	[AHC–SWB–2025]

In this judgment, the Lucknow Bench imposed costs of ₹15,000 on the U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board for suppression and concealment of material facts in proceedings relating to a property dispute involving an Imambara and residential premises. The Court emphasised that institutional litigants are equally bound by the duty of candour and are not immune from costs for suppression. [AHC–SWB–2025]

---

Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others (2023)

Neutral Citation	Outcome	Reference
2023:AHC:226726	Dismissed for Suppression	[AHC–SKS–2023]

The Court dismissed the writ petition after finding non-disclosure of critical facts, holding that a litigant who conceals material facts is not entitled to any relief in Article 226 jurisdiction and that the petition was filed with intent to obtain an order by suppressing adverse facts. [AHC–SKS–2023]

---

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava And 2 Others v. Vishal Singh And, Chief Executive Officer And 2 Others (Contempt Application Civil No. 1785 of 2020)

Order Reserved	Order Delivered	Cost Imposed
16.06.2020	19.06.2020	₹5,000/- On Each Applicant

This decision is methodologically valuable because it combines (i) a strict, Supreme Court-aligned formulation of civil contempt standards and the quasi-criminal standard of proof, with (ii) a rigorous clean-hands/suppression analysis to dismiss a contempt application found to be founded on concealment and misleading averments.

Facts

• The contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 27.07.2012 passed by a Division Bench in PIL No. 31229 of 2005 (Kautilya Society and another vs. State of U.P. and others).
• The interim order restrained construction within 200 meters from the highest flood level at banks of river Ganga at Varanasi and required a compliance report. [24]

Applicants’ Submissions (As Recorded In The Order)

• The interim order dated 27.07.2012 restrained raising any construction within 200 meters from the highest flood level at the banks of river Ganga at Varanasi.
• Subsequent interim orders in connected PILs reinforced the restriction.
• A tender notice was issued for development work alleged to fall within 200 meters.
• Various writ proceedings referenced the 27.07.2012 order.
• Development work was claimed to continue within restricted limits.
• Non-compliance with NMCG conditions was alleged. [24]

Opposite Party No. 1’s Submissions (Through Additional Advocate General)

• The 27.07.2012 order was passed in the background of unauthorised construction.
• Subsequent orders led to constitution of an expert committee.
• The 2018 Act authorised development work.
• Necessary permissions and NOCs were obtained.
• The contempt application suppressed material facts and was non-compliant with Court directions.
• The supplementary affidavit dated 10.06.2020 was unsigned and unsworn, described as a “waste piece of paper”.
• Dismissal with exemplary cost was sought. [25]

Civil Contempt: Principles Applied

• Section 2(b) defining “civil contempt” was reproduced.
• Section 12 providing punishment was noted.
• Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and strictly interpreted.
• Multiple Supreme Court authorities were relied upon. [25]

Suppression And Concealment Of Facts

The Court recorded suppression of material facts relating to the 2018 Act, expert committee constitution, minutes, and multiple NOCs/permissions including INTACH, Town and Country Planning Organisation, Archaeological Survey of India, Central Ground Water Board, CPWD, U.P. Pollution Control Board, and State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. [25]

Exemplary Costs And Result

The Court cited Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) 5 SCC 496 (para 14) regarding firm handling of frivolous filings and deployment of exemplary costs. The contempt application was dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/- on each applicant, to be deposited with the Board within one month. [25]

Allahabad High Court: Division Bench Decisions

Division Bench decisions carry particular authority as binding precedents on benches of the High Court. The following Division Bench decisions on suppression of material facts and exemplary costs represent some of the most significant judicial pronouncements in this area.

Kushwaha Mahasabha v. State of U.P. & Ors., PIL No. 1969 of 2022 (Order dated 19 Dec 2022) — Cost: ₹1,00,000 [AHC–KM–2022]

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (then Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.J. Munir) imposed exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 on a government teacher for suppressing material facts and abusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction. The Bench observed that many litigants can “go to any extent to mislead the Court” and linked the trend to post-Independence value erosion. [AHC–KM–2022]

Asif Khaliq v. State of U.P. & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:148427 (DB) (Order dated 5 July 2023) — Cost: ₹1,00,000 [AHC–AK–2023]

A Division Bench (Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani[2] and Justice Jayant Banerji[3]) imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner for making false averments and suppressing material facts. The Bench directed deposit with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks, recognising that suppression harms the justice system itself. [AHC–AK–2023]

Nari Niketan / Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Nagar v. …, Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:73444 (DB) (Order dated 22 Apr 2024) — Cost: ₹5,00,000 [AHC–CWC–2024]

A Division Bench (Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra) imposed costs of ₹5,00,000 on the Child Welfare Committee / Nari Niketan for a “shocking” decision. The Bench directed that if costs were not paid, the Commissioner of Police would ensure the Chairman’s appearance in Court, demonstrating the High Court’s readiness to enforce cost orders against statutory bodies. [AHC–CWC–2024]

---

Consolidated Legal Principles

1. The Clean Hands Doctrine

Courts have consistently held that the following constitute the foundational obligations of every litigant:

• Litigants must approach courts with clean hands — i.e., full, frank, and complete disclosure of all material facts
• Truth constitutes an integral and non-negotiable part of the justice-delivery system
• All material facts, whether favourable or adverse, must be disclosed truthfully
• No litigant is permitted to play ‘hide and seek’ with the court or suppress facts to gain advantage
• The duty of disclosure applies at every stage of the litigation — from the initial filing to the final disposal

2. Consequences of Suppression

The consequences of suppression of material facts are severe and far-reaching:

• Petition/Application Dismissal — Courts can dismiss petitions at the threshold, at any intermediate stage, or at the final stage
• Nullity of Judgments — Judgments obtained by fraud are nullities and non-est in law; they carry no legal force
• Exemplary Costs — Substantial deterrent costs ranging from ₹15,000 to ₹25,00,000 may be imposed
• Criminal Consequences — In appropriate cases, the Court may initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for perjury or making false statements on oath
• Professional Consequences — Courts may report errant advocates to the Bar Council for disciplinary action
• Adverse Costs — The party practising suppression may be directed to pay the full costs of the opposite party

3. Courts’ Inherent Powers

Indian courts possess extensive inherent powers to deal with fraud:

• Power to recall judgments obtained by fraud, whether by the same court or any lower court
• Power to dismiss at any stage — even at the argument stage or the decree stage — upon discovery of fraud
• Power to impose exemplary costs as deterrent under Order XV-A, Order XX-A, and Section 151 CPC
• Power to initiate contempt proceedings for misleading the court
• Power to act suo motu upon discovering suppression, without waiting for an application

4. The “No Forum Shopping” Rule

Concealing earlier proceedings or judgments amounts to:

• Fraud on the court — because the court is invited to decide a matter that has already been decided
• Abuse of process — because the earlier proceedings are short-circuited by suppression
• A ground for dismissal with exemplary costs and adverse consequences

Courts have held that the very act of approaching a second court without disclosing that the same matter has been decided by another court — whether on merits or otherwise — amounts to a contempt of both courts.

---

Factors Determining Quantum of Exemplary Costs

The following factors have been identified by courts as relevant to determining the quantum of exemplary costs in cases of suppression:

Factor	Description
Degree of Suppression	Whether the suppression was deliberate, calculated, and persistent, or merely inadvertent
Materiality of Suppressed Facts	The greater the materiality of the suppressed facts, the higher the costs
Impact on Administration of Justice	The delay caused, judicial time wasted, and systemic harm inflicted
Repeat Offender Status	Whether the party has a history of filing similar proceedings
Financial Capacity of the Party	Costs must be meaningful to serve their deterrent purpose
Nature of Proceedings	Abuse of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 warrants higher costs
Category of Party	Institutional parties and statutory authorities may be subject to higher costs

---

Procedural Safeguards and Duties of Disclosure

Mandatory Disclosures in Writ Petitions

Every party filing a writ petition before the High Court is obligated to disclose:

• All material facts relating to the cause of action
• All earlier proceedings on the same or related subject matter, including earlier writ petitions, civil suits, revision petitions, and appeals
• All judgments and orders passed in related proceedings, whether favourable or adverse
• All documents executed by the party relevant to the litigation
• Any fact that would or might influence the court in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction
• The complete factual and legal background of the dispute, without omission

Mandatory Verification

Petitions filed before the High Court are required to be verified by the petitioner or an authorised person. A false verification amounts to perjury and can attract criminal prosecution under Section 193 IPC and proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. Courts have held that the verification clause is not a mere formality but a solemn declaration of the truth of the contents of the petition.

Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Courts have consistently held that the consequences of non-disclosure are severe:

• Immediate dismissal at the threshold or at any stage of the proceedings
• Imposition of exemplary costs payable to the opposite party or to the Legal Services Committee
• Adverse costs award in favour of the respondent or the State
• Reporting of errant advocates to the Bar Council of India/State Bar Council for disciplinary action
• Initiation of contempt of court proceedings
• Initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC
• The right to approach the court is extinguished — no further relief can be claimed

---

Guidelines For Legal Practitioners And Litigants

1. For Advocates

The consistent judicial emphasis on disclosure imposes onerous but necessary obligations on advocates. Courts have held:

• Verify all facts thoroughly — do not rely solely on the client’s unverified instructions; cross-check against documents
• Disclose all material facts, even those adverse to the client’s case — the duty to the court is paramount
• Avoid half-truths — selective disclosure is morally and legally equivalent to suppression
• Research prior proceedings — conduct a comprehensive search for all earlier litigation involving the same parties and subject matter
• Advise clients on the severe consequences of suppression before filing
• Remember that professional duty to the court supersedes professional duty to the client
• Do not lend your professional identity to a litigant who insists on suppression — withdraw if necessary
• Document all instructions received from the client in writing, especially regarding prior proceedings

2. For Litigants

• Come with clean hands — approach the court with full, frank, and truthful disclosure
• Disclose all relevant facts and documents, including those adverse to your case
• Do not cherry-pick — you cannot choose which facts to disclose and which to withhold
• Accept the risk of truthful disclosure — it is always preferable to the catastrophic consequences of suppression
• Maintain a long-term perspective — short-term gain through suppression invariably leads to long-term loss
• If you become aware of a material fact after filing, seek leave to amend immediately
• Disclose all earlier litigations, orders, and judgments in your initial filing

3. The Professional Standard

The Bar Council of India Rules require advocates to maintain honesty and candour towards the court. Rule 11 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of the Bar Council of India states that an advocate shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to the court. The judicial insistence on disclosure of material facts is a direct extension of this foundational professional obligation.

Contemporary Relevance And Challenges

The Erosion of Values in Litigation

Courts from the Supreme Court downwards have repeatedly observed that the post-Independence era has witnessed a troubling erosion of ethical values among litigants. The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh observed that in the pre-Independence era, litigants felt proud to tell the truth in courts irrespective of consequences. The Allahabad High Court, in the Government Teacher PIL, noted that “materialism has overshadowed old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that litigants do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood.”

This judicial observation is borne out by data on pendency in Indian courts. A significant proportion of litigation in India involves parties who suppress prior proceedings, file multiple cases on the same cause of action, or provide false or incomplete information in their pleadings. The judicial system bears an enormous burden because of such dishonest litigation.

The Role of Exemplary Costs as Policy Instrument

The imposition of exemplary costs serves multiple purposes simultaneously:

• Deterrence — Costs that sting the pocket serve as a powerful deterrent against frivolous and fraudulent litigation
• Compensation — They compensate the opposite party and the court system for time and resources wasted
• Public Message — They signal to the wider litigating public that suppression will not be tolerated
• Restoration of Institutional Faith — They help restore public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process
• Cultural Shift — Over time, consistent imposition of costs may contribute to a cultural shift toward greater honesty in litigation

Purpose	Impact On Judicial System
Deterrence	Reduces frivolous and fraudulent litigation
Compensation	Offsets time and resources wasted
Public Message	Strengthens intolerance toward suppression
Restoration Of Institutional Faith	Enhances confidence in judicial integrity
Cultural Shift	Encourages long-term honesty in litigation

Technology And The Future Of Disclosure

The digital era presents both opportunities and challenges for the enforcement of the disclosure obligation. On one hand, electronic filing systems with mandatory fields for prior proceedings can help ensure disclosure. On the other hand, sophisticated litigants can more easily research and exploit legal technicalities to craft suppressions that are difficult to detect.

Several High Courts have moved toward integrated case management systems that can detect prior litigation by the same parties on the same subject matter. The National Judicial Data Grid maintains records of pending cases across courts. Full utilisation of these technological tools can significantly reduce the incidence of suppression and forum shopping.

Conclusion

The maxim Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant stands as one of the most enduring and universally acknowledged principles of jurisprudence. It is not merely a theoretical proposition but a living doctrine that is actively and vigorously enforced by the Indian judiciary at every level — from the trial courts to the Supreme Court of India.

The journey from the House of Lords’ pronouncements in the 1950s to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Chengalvaraya Naidu in 1994, and onwards to the robust and proactive approach of the Allahabad High Court in the 2020s, demonstrates that the law’s intolerance of fraud on court has only intensified with time. The Allahabad High Court, in particular, has shown commendable judicial courage in imposing substantial exemplary costs on parties — ranging from individual litigants to statutory bodies — who seek to abuse its extraordinary jurisdiction through suppression and concealment.

The synthesis of the judicial pronouncements examined in this article yields the following fundamental propositions:

• Fraud Vitiates All — no decree, judgment, order, or benefit can stand if obtained through fraud or suppression of material facts
• Clean Hands Are Mandatory — the equitable jurisdiction of the court is available only to those who approach it with truthfulness and full disclosure
• Material Facts Must Be Disclosed — the duty of disclosure extends to all facts that would or might influence the court’s decision
• Courts Possess Inherent Power — to recall, set aside, or ignore any order obtained by fraud, at any stage, without limitation
• Exemplary Costs Are Deterrent — they serve not merely a compensatory function but a prophylactic one, discouraging future suppression
• No Immunity — neither individuals nor statutory bodies nor institutional litigants are immune from the consequences of fraud on court
• Summary Disposal Is Available — courts can and should summarily dismiss cases based on fraud, at any stage of the proceedings

The way forward requires a multi-pronged approach:

• Continued and unwavering judicial vigilance
• Imposition of costs that are truly exemplary and serve their deterrent purpose
• Greater professional responsibility among members of the Bar
• Client education on the catastrophic consequences of dishonest litigation
• Technological reforms to enable early detection of prior proceedings
• Where warranted, disciplinary action against advocates who facilitate suppression

The celebrated dictum of Lord Denning — “Fraud unravels everything” — has been enthusiastically embraced by the Indian judiciary. The Allahabad High Court’s jurisprudence on exemplary costs, examined in detail in this article, is an inspiring testament to the proposition that the courts of this country remain committed to the ancient but eternally relevant maxim:

“Fraus Et Jus Nunquam Cohabitant”

Those who seek justice must come to court with clean hands,
for Fraud and Justice can never dwell together.End Notes:

1. https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/15_Motor_Vehicle_Act/02_genuineness_of_the_licence/United_India_Insurance_Co._Ltd_vs_Rajendra_Singh_14_March%2C_2000.PDF
2. https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/15_Motor_Vehicle_Act/02_genuineness_of_the_licence/United_India_Insurance_Co._Ltd_vs_Rajendra_Singh_%26_Ors_on_14_March%2C_2000.PDF
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/371933/
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/371933/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/693530/
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/693530/
7. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117ea52713e179478a805c
8. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117ea52713e179478a805c
9. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1602137/
10. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1602137/
11. https://vlex.in/vid/devendra-kumar-vs-state-546049982
12. https://vlex.in/vid/devendra-kumar-vs-state-546049982
13. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42355707/
14. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42355707/
15. https://www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in/Notice-Files/CL/6743
16. https://www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in/Notice-Files/CL/6743
17. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1329151/
18. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1329151/
19. https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/40543.pdf
20. https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/40543.pdf
21. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69124894/
22. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69124894/
23. https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/21_State_of_UP_v_Ravindra-Kumar-Sharma.pdf
24. https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/21_State_of_UP_v_Ravindra-Kumar-Sharma.pdf
25. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/26291/26291_2023_2_1501_62601_Judgement_23-Jul-2025.pdf
26. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/26291/26291_2023_2_1501_62601_Judgement_23-Jul-2025.pdf
27. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123745415/
28. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123745415/
29. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e5304a93261ae6b582e2
30. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e5304a93261ae6b582e2
31. https://archive.org/stream/calcuttalawrepo00commgoog/calcuttalawrepo00commgoog_djvu.txt
32. https://archive.org/stream/calcuttalawrepo00commgoog/
33. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/%2Btogether
34. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/
35. https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=8875
36. https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=8875
37. https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/hiding-facts-is-playing-fraud-on-court-allahabad-high-court-fines-man-rs-15k-for-abusing-pil-process-1514141
38. https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/hiding-facts-is-playing-fraud-on-court-allahabad-high-court-fines-man-rs-15k-for-abusing-pil-process-1514141

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]