{"id":16044,"date":"2026-02-22T06:20:54","date_gmt":"2026-02-22T06:20:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=16044"},"modified":"2026-02-22T07:21:51","modified_gmt":"2026-02-22T07:21:51","slug":"fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/","title":{"rendered":"Fraus Et Jus Nunquam Cohabitant: Fraud on Court, Suppression of Facts &amp; Exemplary Costs in Indian Judiciary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The ancient Latin maxim \u201cFraus et jus nunquam cohabitant\u201d \u2014 \u201cfraud and justice never dwell together\u201d \u2014 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.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#The_Legal_Foundation_Understanding_the_Maxim\" >The Legal Foundation: Understanding the Maxim<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#1_The_Latin_Maxims_and_Their_Meaning\" >1. The Latin Maxims and Their Meaning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#2_What_Constitutes_%E2%80%9CFraud_on_the_Court%E2%80%9D\" >2. What Constitutes \u201cFraud on the Court\u201d<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#3_What_Constitutes_a_%E2%80%9CMaterial%E2%80%9D_Fact\" >3. What Constitutes a \u201cMaterial\u201d Fact<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Quick_Reference_Summary\" >Quick Reference Summary<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Landmark_Supreme_Court_Judgments\" >Landmark Supreme Court Judgments<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Modern_Restatement_2025_Authority\" >Modern Restatement (2025 Authority)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Select_High_Court_Decisions_Outside_Allahabad_High_Court\" >Select High Court Decisions Outside Allahabad High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Accessibility_Note\" >Accessibility Note<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Comparative_Overview_Of_Doctrinal_Position\" >Comparative Overview Of Doctrinal Position<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Allahabad_High_Court_Single_Bench_Decisions_On_Exemplary_Costs\" >Allahabad High Court: Single Bench Decisions On Exemplary Costs<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Sunita_Nishad_v_State_of_UP_and_Others_2025\" >Sunita Nishad v. State of U.P. and Others (2025)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Noor_Hasan_v_State_of_UP_and_Others_2021\" >Noor Hasan v. State of U.P. and Others (2021)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Manish_Kumar_v_State_of_UP_and_6_Others_2025\" >Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others (2025)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Keshav_Prasad_and_Others_v_Consolidation_Commissioner_Lucknow_2024\" >Keshav Prasad and Others v. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow (2024)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#UP_Shia_Central_Waqf_Board_v_%E2%80%A6_2025\" >U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board v. &#8230; (2025)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Sunil_Kumar_Srivastava_v_State_of_UP_and_Others_2023\" >Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others (2023)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Pradeep_Kumar_Srivastava_And_2_Others_v_Vishal_Singh_And_Chief_Executive_Officer_And_2_Others_Contempt_Application_Civil_No_1785_of_2020\" >Pradeep Kumar Srivastava And 2 Others v. Vishal Singh And, Chief Executive Officer And 2 Others (Contempt Application Civil No. 1785 of 2020)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Applicants_Submissions_As_Recorded_In_The_Order\" >Applicants\u2019 Submissions (As Recorded In The Order)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Opposite_Party_No_1s_Submissions_Through_Additional_Advocate_General\" >Opposite Party No. 1\u2019s Submissions (Through Additional Advocate General)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Civil_Contempt_Principles_Applied\" >Civil Contempt: Principles Applied<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Suppression_And_Concealment_Of_Facts\" >Suppression And Concealment Of Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Exemplary_Costs_And_Result\" >Exemplary Costs And Result<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Allahabad_High_Court_Division_Bench_Decisions\" >Allahabad High Court: Division Bench Decisions<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Kushwaha_Mahasabha_v_State_of_UP_Ors_PIL_No_1969_of_2022_Order_dated_19_Dec_2022_%E2%80%94_Cost_%E2%82%B9100000_AHC%E2%80%93KM%E2%80%932022\" >Kushwaha Mahasabha v. State of U.P. &amp; Ors., PIL No. 1969 of 2022 (Order dated 19 Dec 2022) \u2014 Cost: \u20b91,00,000 [AHC\u2013KM\u20132022]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Asif_Khaliq_v_State_of_UP_Ors_Neutral_Citation_2023_AHC_148427_DB_Order_dated_5_July_2023_%E2%80%94_Cost_%E2%82%B9100000_AHC%E2%80%93AK%E2%80%932023\" >Asif Khaliq v. State of U.P. &amp; Ors., Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:148427 (DB) (Order dated 5 July 2023) \u2014 Cost: \u20b91,00,000 [AHC\u2013AK\u20132023]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Nari_Niketan_Child_Welfare_Committee_Kanpur_Nagar_v_%E2%80%A6_Neutral_Citation_2024_AHC_73444_DB_Order_dated_22_Apr_2024_%E2%80%94_Cost_%E2%82%B9500000_AHC%E2%80%93CWC%E2%80%932024\" >Nari Niketan \/ Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Nagar v. \u2026, Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:73444 (DB) (Order dated 22 Apr 2024) \u2014 Cost: \u20b95,00,000 [AHC\u2013CWC\u20132024]<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Consolidated_Legal_Principles\" >Consolidated Legal Principles<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#1_The_Clean_Hands_Doctrine\" >1. The Clean Hands Doctrine<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#2_Consequences_of_Suppression\" >2. Consequences of Suppression<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#3_Courts_Inherent_Powers\" >3. Courts\u2019 Inherent Powers<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#4_The_%E2%80%9CNo_Forum_Shopping%E2%80%9D_Rule\" >4. The \u201cNo Forum Shopping\u201d Rule<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Factors_Determining_Quantum_of_Exemplary_Costs\" >Factors Determining Quantum of Exemplary Costs<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Procedural_Safeguards_and_Duties_of_Disclosure\" >Procedural Safeguards and Duties of Disclosure<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Mandatory_Disclosures_in_Writ_Petitions\" >Mandatory Disclosures in Writ Petitions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Mandatory_Verification\" >Mandatory Verification<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Consequences_of_Non-Disclosure\" >Consequences of Non-Disclosure<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Guidelines_For_Legal_Practitioners_And_Litigants\" >Guidelines For Legal Practitioners And Litigants<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#1_For_Advocates\" >1. For Advocates<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#2_For_Litigants\" >2. For Litigants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#3_The_Professional_Standard\" >3. The Professional Standard<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-44\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Contemporary_Relevance_And_Challenges\" >Contemporary Relevance And Challenges<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-45\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#The_Erosion_of_Values_in_Litigation\" >The Erosion of Values in Litigation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-46\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#The_Role_of_Exemplary_Costs_as_Policy_Instrument\" >The Role of Exemplary Costs as Policy Instrument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-47\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Technology_And_The_Future_Of_Disclosure\" >Technology And The Future Of Disclosure<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-48\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-suppression-of-facts-exemplary-costs-in-indian-judiciary\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The principle is closely intertwined with the equitable doctrine of \u201cclean hands\u201d \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-foundation-understanding-the-maxim\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Legal_Foundation_Understanding_the_Maxim\"><\/span>The Legal Foundation: Understanding the Maxim<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"latin-maxims-and-their-meaning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_The_Latin_Maxims_and_Their_Meaning\"><\/span>1. The Latin Maxims and Their Meaning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The primary maxim, Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant, translates directly as \u201cFraud and Justice never dwell together.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Two companion maxims reinforce this foundational principle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cFraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent\u201d \u2014 Fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cSuppressio veri, suggestio falsi\u201d \u2014 Suppression of truth is equivalent to suggestion of falsehood.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Together, these three maxims establish a complete doctrine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Fraud vitiates all proceedings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No person can benefit from their own fraudulent conduct.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Suppressing the truth is morally and legally equivalent to stating a falsehood.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These principles have been adopted by the Indian judiciary and applied with increasing vigour in modern times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-constitutes-fraud-on-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_What_Constitutes_%E2%80%9CFraud_on_the_Court%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>2. What Constitutes \u201cFraud on the Court\u201d<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts have defined fraud on the court broadly to encompass:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>An act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A deception in order to gain by another\u2019s loss.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cheating intended to obtain an undue advantage.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Suppression or concealment of material facts that would influence the court\u2019s decision.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Withholding of vital documents to gain advantage over the opposite party.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Misrepresentation of facts in petitions, affidavits, or pleadings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Concealment of prior litigation or adverse orders from the court.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Playing \u201chide and seek\u201d with facts \u2014 selecting only favourable facts for disclosure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-constitutes-a-material-fact\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_What_Constitutes_a_%E2%80%9CMaterial%E2%80%9D_Fact\"><\/span>3. What Constitutes a \u201cMaterial\u201d Fact<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A fact is \u201cmaterial\u201d if its disclosure would or might reasonably affect the court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"quick-reference-summary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Quick_Reference_Summary\"><\/span>Quick Reference Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Concept<\/th><th>Meaning<\/th><th>Legal Consequence<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant<\/td><td>Fraud and justice never dwell together<\/td><td>Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent<\/td><td>Fraud and deceit excuse no one<\/td><td>No benefit from fraudulent conduct<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi<\/td><td>Suppression of truth equals falsehood<\/td><td>Suppression treated as misrepresentation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Material Fact<\/td><td>A fact that may influence judicial decision<\/td><td>Non-disclosure may result in dismissal<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"landmark-supreme-court-judgments-on-fraud\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Landmark_Supreme_Court_Judgments\"><\/span>Landmark Supreme Court Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol style=\"list-style-type:upper-alpha\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 [SC\u2013SPCN\u20131994] 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 \u2014 a document of critical materiality \u2014 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 \u201cFraud 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.\u201d [SC\u2013SPCN\u20131994] \u201cA 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.\u201d [SC\u2013SPCN\u20131994] \u201cThe principle of \u2018finality of litigation\u2019 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.\u201d [SC\u2013SPCN\u20131994] Legal Principles Established\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in law<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fraudulent judgments can be challenged even in collateral proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Litigants are bound to produce all documents relevant to litigation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Withholding a vital document amounts to fraud on court<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The principle of finality of litigation cannot protect fraudulent proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2592 [SC\u2013IB\u20131996] 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 \u201cThe 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).\u201d [SC\u2013IB\u20131996] \u201cNo judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.\u201d [SC\u2013IB\u20131996] \u201cThe 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.\u201d [SC\u2013IB\u20131996] Significance\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Directly applied the Latin maxim Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant in the Indian context<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Confirmed that all authorities \u2014 constitutional, statutory, or administrative \u2014 can recall decisions obtained by fraud<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Grounded the power to recall fraudulent judgments in Section 151 CPC as an inherent power of courts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 [SC\u2013AVP\u20132007] Key Judicial Pronouncements \u201cIt 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.\u201d [SC\u2013AVP\u20132007] The Court further observed that fraud can be of an infinite variety \u2014 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. \u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 [SC\u2013DS\u20132010] Key Judicial Pronouncements \u201cThe 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.\u201d [SC\u2013DS\u20132010] 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. \u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh &amp; Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581 (decision dated 14 March 2000) Background And Context The Insurance Company asserted that \u201ca rank fraud\u201d 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 \u201cFraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) \u2026 is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.\u201d [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\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Courts and tribunals should not shut the door on allegations of fraud as a mere technicality of review<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>They must consider whether recall\/setting aside is warranted to prevent unjust enrichment through fraud<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Summary Of Subsequent Supreme Court Authorities Case Core Principle Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi &amp; Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319 Fraud vitiates every solemn act; fraud undermines administration of justice. Vijay Shekhar &amp; Anr. v. Union of India &amp; Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 666 Fraud on power and abuse of process render proceedings unsustainable. Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan &amp; Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325 Fraud vitiates proceedings; natural justice is contextual. State of A.P. &amp; Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149 Fraud defeats procedural finality. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 605 Fraud = deceit + injury; intention to deceive is core element. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors., (2009) 11 SCC 18 Fraud includes concealment and reckless misrepresentation. Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC &amp; ST &amp; Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 99 Status\/benefits cannot survive if foundational facts are fraudulent. Meghmala &amp; Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy &amp; Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 383 Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings. Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab &amp; Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 588 Fraud is deliberate deception; orders obtained by fraud cannot stand. Vikas Pratap Singh &amp; Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 No legal right can vest by fraud in service law. Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal &amp; Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363 Suppression in verification process justifies termination. State of U.P. &amp; Ors. v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma &amp; Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 732 Fraudulent certification cannot be immunised. Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors., 2025 INSC 884 Fraud unravels everything; doctrine of merger inapplicable when fraud established.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"modern-restatement-2025\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Modern_Restatement_2025_Authority\"><\/span>Modern Restatement (2025 Authority)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"select-high-court-decisions-outside-allahabad-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Select_High_Court_Decisions_Outside_Allahabad_High_Court\"><\/span>Select High Court Decisions Outside Allahabad High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>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\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Bombay High Court reiterated that orders obtained by fraud can be recalled because \u201cfraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)\u201d and that \u201cfraud and deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).\u201d [18]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Jai Kishun Singh v. Union of India &amp; 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\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court emphasised that directions that effectively protect pension obtained through \u201cfraud and misrepresentation\u201d would amount to giving a \u201cpremium on fraud, misrepresentation and corruption,\u201d and that the Court would not be a party to that. [19]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mohan Lal Kadwasra v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &amp; Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) (Decision Dated 8 January 2015) [20] Context And Relevance\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>This decision (arising in a recruitment\/service dispute context) repeats that the maxim \u201cfraus et jus nunquam cohabitant\u201d continues to dwell in service law jurisprudence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It reiterates that fraud\/misrepresentation cannot create enforceable rights in public employment. [20]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bimal Prosad Jana v. State of West Bengal &amp; Ors. (Calcutta High Court) (Decision Dated 14 July 2000) Context And Relevance\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>This decision (as located in accessible case-law digest entries) records that the Court relied upon Supreme Court fraud jurisprudence including the propositions that:\n<ol style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>fraud and justice never dwell together, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>courts should not permit a party to reap benefits of his own fraud at the cost of another\u2019s fair opportunity. [21]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"accessibility-note\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Accessibility_Note\"><\/span>Accessibility Note<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>(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]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparative-overview-of-doctrinal-position\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparative_Overview_Of_Doctrinal_Position\"><\/span>Comparative Overview Of Doctrinal Position<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>High Court<\/th><th>Core Principle Reaffirmed<\/th><th>Context<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 (2010)<\/td><td>Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)<\/td><td>Fraud vitiates judicial orders; fraud and justice cannot coexist<\/td><td>Caste certificate scrutiny \/ service law<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Jai Kishun Singh v. Union of India &amp; Ors. (2006)<\/td><td>Jharkhand High Court<\/td><td>No protection for benefits obtained by fraud or misrepresentation<\/td><td>Freedom fighter pension claim<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mohan Lal Kadwasra v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &amp; Ors. (2015)<\/td><td>Rajasthan High Court<\/td><td>Fraud cannot create enforceable rights in public employment<\/td><td>Recruitment \/ service dispute<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Bimal Prosad Jana v. State of West Bengal &amp; Ors. (2000)<\/td><td>Calcutta High Court<\/td><td>Courts will not permit a party to benefit from his own fraud<\/td><td>Fraud jurisprudence (digest-based reference)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"allahabad-high-court-single-bench-decisions-on-exemplary-costs\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Allahabad_High_Court_Single_Bench_Decisions_On_Exemplary_Costs\"><\/span>Allahabad High Court: Single Bench Decisions On Exemplary Costs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sunita-nishad-v-state-of-up-2025\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sunita_Nishad_v_State_of_UP_and_Others_2025\"><\/span>Sunita Nishad v. State of U.P. and Others (2025)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><th>Cost Imposed<\/th><th>Reference<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>2025:AHC:9888<\/td><td>\u20b925,00,000<\/td><td>[AHC\u2013SN\u20132025]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In this decision, Justice Sangeeta Chandra[1] imposed exemplary costs of \u20b925,00,000 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 \u20b990,00,000, 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\u2013SN\u20132025]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"noor-hasan-v-state-of-up-2021\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Noor_Hasan_v_State_of_UP_and_Others_2021\"><\/span>Noor Hasan v. State of U.P. and Others (2021)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Details<\/th><th>Cost Imposed<\/th><th>Reference<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Writ-C No. 15696 of 2020 (Order dated 18 January 2021)<\/td><td>\u20b93,00,000<\/td><td>[AHC\u2013NH\u20132021]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u20b93,00,000, 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\u2013NH\u20132021]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"manish-kumar-v-state-of-up-2025\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Manish_Kumar_v_State_of_UP_and_6_Others_2025\"><\/span>Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others (2025)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Type<\/th><th>Cost Imposed<\/th><th>Reference<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Public Interest Litigation (Order dated 25 July 2025)<\/td><td>\u20b915,000<\/td><td>[AHC\u2013MK\u20132025]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u201chide and seek\u201d with the court and that suppression of truth is equivalent to suggesting falsehood. [AHC\u2013MK\u20132025]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"keshav-prasad-v-consolidation-commissioner-2024\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Keshav_Prasad_and_Others_v_Consolidation_Commissioner_Lucknow_2024\"><\/span>Keshav Prasad and Others v. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow (2024)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Bench<\/th><th>Cost Imposed<\/th><th>Reference<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Lucknow Bench (2024:AHC-LKO:65819)<\/td><td>\u20b950,000<\/td><td>[AHC\u2013KP\u20132024]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In this case, Justice Jaspreet Singh[5] imposed costs of \u20b950,000 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\u2013KP\u20132024]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"up-shia-central-waqf-board-case-2025\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"UP_Shia_Central_Waqf_Board_v_%E2%80%A6_2025\"><\/span>U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board v. &#8230; (2025)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Bench<\/th><th>Cost Imposed<\/th><th>Reference<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Lucknow Bench<\/td><td>\u20b915,000<\/td><td>[AHC\u2013SWB\u20132025]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In this judgment, the Lucknow Bench imposed costs of \u20b915,000 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\u2013SWB\u20132025]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sunil-kumar-srivastava-v-state-of-up-2023\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sunil_Kumar_Srivastava_v_State_of_UP_and_Others_2023\"><\/span>Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others (2023)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><th>Outcome<\/th><th>Reference<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>2023:AHC:226726<\/td><td>Dismissed for Suppression<\/td><td>[AHC\u2013SKS\u20132023]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>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\u2013SKS\u20132023]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"pradeep-kumar-srivastava-contempt-application-2020\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Pradeep_Kumar_Srivastava_And_2_Others_v_Vishal_Singh_And_Chief_Executive_Officer_And_2_Others_Contempt_Application_Civil_No_1785_of_2020\"><\/span>Pradeep Kumar Srivastava And 2 Others v. Vishal Singh And, Chief Executive Officer And 2 Others (Contempt Application Civil No. 1785 of 2020)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Order Reserved<\/th><th>Order Delivered<\/th><th>Cost Imposed<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>16.06.2020<\/td><td>19.06.2020<\/td><td>\u20b95,000\/- On Each Applicant<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"facts-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>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).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"applicants-submissions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Applicants_Submissions_As_Recorded_In_The_Order\"><\/span>Applicants\u2019 Submissions (As Recorded In The Order)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Subsequent interim orders in connected PILs reinforced the restriction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A tender notice was issued for development work alleged to fall within 200 meters.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Various writ proceedings referenced the 27.07.2012 order.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Development work was claimed to continue within restricted limits.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Non-compliance with NMCG conditions was alleged. [24]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"opposite-party-submissions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Opposite_Party_No_1s_Submissions_Through_Additional_Advocate_General\"><\/span>Opposite Party No. 1\u2019s Submissions (Through Additional Advocate General)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The 27.07.2012 order was passed in the background of unauthorised construction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Subsequent orders led to constitution of an expert committee.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The 2018 Act authorised development work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Necessary permissions and NOCs were obtained.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The contempt application suppressed material facts and was non-compliant with Court directions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The supplementary affidavit dated 10.06.2020 was unsigned and unsworn, described as a \u201cwaste piece of paper\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dismissal with exemplary cost was sought. [25]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"civil-contempt-principles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Civil_Contempt_Principles_Applied\"><\/span>Civil Contempt: Principles Applied<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Section 2(b) defining \u201ccivil contempt\u201d was reproduced.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 12 providing punishment was noted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and strictly interpreted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Multiple Supreme Court authorities were relied upon. [25]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"suppression-and-concealment-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Suppression_And_Concealment_Of_Facts\"><\/span>Suppression And Concealment Of Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"exemplary-costs-and-result\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Exemplary_Costs_And_Result\"><\/span>Exemplary Costs And Result<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u20b95,000\/- on each applicant, to be deposited with the Board within one month. [25]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"allahabad-high-court-division-bench-decisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Allahabad_High_Court_Division_Bench_Decisions\"><\/span>Allahabad High Court: Division Bench Decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"kushwaha-mahasabha-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kushwaha_Mahasabha_v_State_of_UP_Ors_PIL_No_1969_of_2022_Order_dated_19_Dec_2022_%E2%80%94_Cost_%E2%82%B9100000_AHC%E2%80%93KM%E2%80%932022\"><\/span>Kushwaha Mahasabha v. State of U.P. &amp; Ors., PIL No. 1969 of 2022 (Order dated 19 Dec 2022) \u2014 Cost: \u20b91,00,000 [AHC\u2013KM\u20132022]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (then Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.J. Munir) imposed exemplary costs of \u20b91,00,000 on a government teacher for suppressing material facts and abusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction. The Bench observed that many litigants can \u201cgo to any extent to mislead the Court\u201d and linked the trend to post-Independence value erosion. [AHC\u2013KM\u20132022]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"asif-khaliq-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Asif_Khaliq_v_State_of_UP_Ors_Neutral_Citation_2023_AHC_148427_DB_Order_dated_5_July_2023_%E2%80%94_Cost_%E2%82%B9100000_AHC%E2%80%93AK%E2%80%932023\"><\/span>Asif Khaliq v. State of U.P. &amp; Ors., Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:148427 (DB) (Order dated 5 July 2023) \u2014 Cost: \u20b91,00,000 [AHC\u2013AK\u20132023]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A Division Bench (Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani[2] and Justice Jayant Banerji[3]) imposed costs of \u20b91,00,000 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\u2013AK\u20132023]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"nari-niketan-child-welfare-committee-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nari_Niketan_Child_Welfare_Committee_Kanpur_Nagar_v_%E2%80%A6_Neutral_Citation_2024_AHC_73444_DB_Order_dated_22_Apr_2024_%E2%80%94_Cost_%E2%82%B9500000_AHC%E2%80%93CWC%E2%80%932024\"><\/span>Nari Niketan \/ Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Nagar v. \u2026, Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:73444 (DB) (Order dated 22 Apr 2024) \u2014 Cost: \u20b95,00,000 [AHC\u2013CWC\u20132024]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A Division Bench (Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra) imposed costs of \u20b95,00,000 on the Child Welfare Committee \/ Nari Niketan for a \u201cshocking\u201d decision. The Bench directed that if costs were not paid, the Commissioner of Police would ensure the Chairman\u2019s appearance in Court, demonstrating the High Court\u2019s readiness to enforce cost orders against statutory bodies. [AHC\u2013CWC\u20132024]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"consolidated-legal-principles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Consolidated_Legal_Principles\"><\/span>Consolidated Legal Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"clean-hands-doctrine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_The_Clean_Hands_Doctrine\"><\/span>1. The Clean Hands Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts have consistently held that the following constitute the foundational obligations of every litigant:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Litigants must approach courts with clean hands \u2014 i.e., full, frank, and complete disclosure of all material facts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Truth constitutes an integral and non-negotiable part of the justice-delivery system<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All material facts, whether favourable or adverse, must be disclosed truthfully<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No litigant is permitted to play \u2018hide and seek\u2019 with the court or suppress facts to gain advantage<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The duty of disclosure applies at every stage of the litigation \u2014 from the initial filing to the final disposal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"consequences-of-suppression\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Consequences_of_Suppression\"><\/span>2. Consequences of Suppression<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The consequences of suppression of material facts are severe and far-reaching:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Petition\/Application Dismissal<\/strong> \u2014 Courts can dismiss petitions at the threshold, at any intermediate stage, or at the final stage<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Nullity of Judgments<\/strong> \u2014 Judgments obtained by fraud are nullities and non-est in law; they carry no legal force<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Exemplary Costs<\/strong> \u2014 Substantial deterrent costs ranging from \u20b915,000 to \u20b925,00,000 may be imposed<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criminal Consequences<\/strong> \u2014 In appropriate cases, the Court may initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for perjury or making false statements on oath<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Professional Consequences<\/strong> \u2014 Courts may report errant advocates to the Bar Council for disciplinary action<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Adverse Costs<\/strong> \u2014 The party practising suppression may be directed to pay the full costs of the opposite party<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"courts-inherent-powers\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Courts_Inherent_Powers\"><\/span>3. Courts\u2019 Inherent Powers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Indian courts possess extensive inherent powers to deal with fraud:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Power to recall judgments obtained by fraud, whether by the same court or any lower court<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Power to dismiss at any stage \u2014 even at the argument stage or the decree stage \u2014 upon discovery of fraud<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Power to impose exemplary costs as deterrent under Order XV-A, Order XX-A, and Section 151 CPC<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Power to initiate contempt proceedings for misleading the court<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Power to act suo motu upon discovering suppression, without waiting for an application<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"no-forum-shopping-rule\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_The_%E2%80%9CNo_Forum_Shopping%E2%80%9D_Rule\"><\/span>4. The \u201cNo Forum Shopping\u201d Rule<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Concealing earlier proceedings or judgments amounts to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Fraud on the court<\/strong> \u2014 because the court is invited to decide a matter that has already been decided<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Abuse of process<\/strong> \u2014 because the earlier proceedings are short-circuited by suppression<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A ground for dismissal with exemplary costs and adverse consequences<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts have held that the very act of approaching a second court without disclosing that the same matter has been decided by another court \u2014 whether on merits or otherwise \u2014 amounts to a contempt of both courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factors-determining-quantum-of-exemplary-costs\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factors_Determining_Quantum_of_Exemplary_Costs\"><\/span>Factors Determining Quantum of Exemplary Costs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The following factors have been identified by courts as relevant to determining the quantum of exemplary costs in cases of suppression:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Factor<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Degree of Suppression<\/td><td>Whether the suppression was deliberate, calculated, and persistent, or merely inadvertent<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Materiality of Suppressed Facts<\/td><td>The greater the materiality of the suppressed facts, the higher the costs<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Impact on Administration of Justice<\/td><td>The delay caused, judicial time wasted, and systemic harm inflicted<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Repeat Offender Status<\/td><td>Whether the party has a history of filing similar proceedings<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Financial Capacity of the Party<\/td><td>Costs must be meaningful to serve their deterrent purpose<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature of Proceedings<\/td><td>Abuse of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 warrants higher costs<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Category of Party<\/td><td>Institutional parties and statutory authorities may be subject to higher costs<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-safeguards-and-duties-of-disclosure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Safeguards_and_Duties_of_Disclosure\"><\/span>Procedural Safeguards and Duties of Disclosure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mandatory-disclosures-in-writ-petitions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mandatory_Disclosures_in_Writ_Petitions\"><\/span>Mandatory Disclosures in Writ Petitions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Every party filing a writ petition before the High Court is obligated to disclose:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>All material facts relating to the cause of action<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All earlier proceedings on the same or related subject matter, including earlier writ petitions, civil suits, revision petitions, and appeals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All judgments and orders passed in related proceedings, whether favourable or adverse<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All documents executed by the party relevant to the litigation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Any fact that would or might influence the court in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The complete factual and legal background of the dispute, without omission<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mandatory-verification\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mandatory_Verification\"><\/span>Mandatory Verification<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"consequences-of-non-disclosure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Consequences_of_Non-Disclosure\"><\/span>Consequences of Non-Disclosure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts have consistently held that the consequences of non-disclosure are severe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Immediate dismissal at the threshold or at any stage of the proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Imposition of exemplary costs payable to the opposite party or to the Legal Services Committee<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Adverse costs award in favour of the respondent or the State<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reporting of errant advocates to the Bar Council of India\/State Bar Council for disciplinary action<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Initiation of contempt of court proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The right to approach the court is extinguished \u2014 no further relief can be claimed<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"guidelines-for-legal-practitioners-and-litigants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Guidelines_For_Legal_Practitioners_And_Litigants\"><\/span>Guidelines For Legal Practitioners And Litigants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"for-advocates\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_For_Advocates\"><\/span>1. For Advocates<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The consistent judicial emphasis on disclosure imposes onerous but necessary obligations on advocates. Courts have held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Verify all facts thoroughly \u2014 do not rely solely on the client\u2019s unverified instructions; cross-check against documents<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Disclose all material facts, even those adverse to the client\u2019s case \u2014 the duty to the court is paramount<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Avoid half-truths \u2014 selective disclosure is morally and legally equivalent to suppression<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Research prior proceedings \u2014 conduct a comprehensive search for all earlier litigation involving the same parties and subject matter<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Advise clients on the severe consequences of suppression before filing<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Remember that professional duty to the court supersedes professional duty to the client<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Do not lend your professional identity to a litigant who insists on suppression \u2014 withdraw if necessary<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Document all instructions received from the client in writing, especially regarding prior proceedings<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"for-litigants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_For_Litigants\"><\/span>2. For Litigants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Come with clean hands \u2014 approach the court with full, frank, and truthful disclosure<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Disclose all relevant facts and documents, including those adverse to your case<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Do not cherry-pick \u2014 you cannot choose which facts to disclose and which to withhold<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Accept the risk of truthful disclosure \u2014 it is always preferable to the catastrophic consequences of suppression<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Maintain a long-term perspective \u2014 short-term gain through suppression invariably leads to long-term loss<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If you become aware of a material fact after filing, seek leave to amend immediately<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Disclose all earlier litigations, orders, and judgments in your initial filing<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"professional-standard\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_The_Professional_Standard\"><\/span>3. The Professional Standard<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"contemporary-relevance-and-challenges\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Contemporary_Relevance_And_Challenges\"><\/span>Contemporary Relevance And Challenges<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"erosion-of-values-in-litigation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Erosion_of_Values_in_Litigation\"><\/span>The Erosion of Values in Litigation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u201cmaterialism has overshadowed old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that litigants do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"role-of-exemplary-costs\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Role_of_Exemplary_Costs_as_Policy_Instrument\"><\/span>The Role of Exemplary Costs as Policy Instrument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The imposition of exemplary costs serves multiple purposes simultaneously:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Deterrence<\/strong> \u2014 Costs that sting the pocket serve as a powerful deterrent against frivolous and fraudulent litigation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Compensation<\/strong> \u2014 They compensate the opposite party and the court system for time and resources wasted<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Public Message<\/strong> \u2014 They signal to the wider litigating public that suppression will not be tolerated<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Restoration of Institutional Faith<\/strong> \u2014 They help restore public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultural Shift<\/strong> \u2014 Over time, consistent imposition of costs may contribute to a cultural shift toward greater honesty in litigation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Purpose<\/th><th>Impact On Judicial System<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Deterrence<\/td><td>Reduces frivolous and fraudulent litigation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Compensation<\/td><td>Offsets time and resources wasted<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Public Message<\/td><td>Strengthens intolerance toward suppression<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Restoration Of Institutional Faith<\/td><td>Enhances confidence in judicial integrity<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Cultural Shift<\/td><td>Encourages long-term honesty in litigation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"technology-and-future-of-disclosure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Technology_And_The_Future_Of_Disclosure\"><\/span>Technology And The Future Of Disclosure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u2014 from the trial courts to the Supreme Court of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The journey from the House of Lords\u2019 pronouncements in the 1950s to the Supreme Court\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u2014 ranging from individual litigants to statutory bodies \u2014 who seek to abuse its extraordinary jurisdiction through suppression and concealment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The synthesis of the judicial pronouncements examined in this article yields the following fundamental propositions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Fraud Vitiates All<\/strong> \u2014 no decree, judgment, order, or benefit can stand if obtained through fraud or suppression of material facts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Clean Hands Are Mandatory<\/strong> \u2014 the equitable jurisdiction of the court is available only to those who approach it with truthfulness and full disclosure<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Material Facts Must Be Disclosed<\/strong> \u2014 the duty of disclosure extends to all facts that would or might influence the court\u2019s decision<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Courts Possess Inherent Power<\/strong> \u2014 to recall, set aside, or ignore any order obtained by fraud, at any stage, without limitation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Exemplary Costs Are Deterrent<\/strong> \u2014 they serve not merely a compensatory function but a prophylactic one, discouraging future suppression<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>No Immunity<\/strong> \u2014 neither individuals nor statutory bodies nor institutional litigants are immune from the consequences of fraud on court<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Summary Disposal Is Available<\/strong> \u2014 courts can and should summarily dismiss cases based on fraud, at any stage of the proceedings<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The way forward requires a multi-pronged approach:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Continued and unwavering judicial vigilance<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Imposition of costs that are truly exemplary and serve their deterrent purpose<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Greater professional responsibility among members of the Bar<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Client education on the catastrophic consequences of dishonest litigation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Technological reforms to enable early detection of prior proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where warranted, disciplinary action against advocates who facilitate suppression<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The celebrated dictum of Lord Denning \u2014 \u201cFraud unravels everything\u201d \u2014 has been enthusiastically embraced by the Indian judiciary. The Allahabad High Court\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>\u201cFraus Et Jus Nunquam Cohabitant\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who seek justice must come to court with clean hands,<br>for Fraud and Justice can never dwell together.<strong>End Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>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<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/371933\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/371933\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/693530\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/693530\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/judgement\/in\/58117ea52713e179478a805c<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/judgement\/in\/58117ea52713e179478a805c<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1602137\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1602137\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/vlex.in\/vid\/devendra-kumar-vs-state-546049982<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/vlex.in\/vid\/devendra-kumar-vs-state-546049982<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/42355707\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/42355707\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in\/Notice-Files\/CL\/6743<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in\/Notice-Files\/CL\/6743<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1329151\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1329151\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/40543.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/40543.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/69124894\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/69124894\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/clpr.org.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/21_State_of_UP_v_Ravindra-Kumar-Sharma.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/clpr.org.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/21_State_of_UP_v_Ravindra-Kumar-Sharma.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2023\/26291\/26291_2023_2_1501_62601_Judgement_23-Jul-2025.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2023\/26291\/26291_2023_2_1501_62601_Judgement_23-Jul-2025.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/123745415\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/123745415\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/judgement\/in\/5ac5e5304a93261ae6b582e2<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/judgement\/in\/5ac5e5304a93261ae6b582e2<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/archive.org\/stream\/calcuttalawrepo00commgoog\/calcuttalawrepo00commgoog_djvu.txt<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/archive.org\/stream\/calcuttalawrepo00commgoog\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/search\/in\/%2Btogether<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/search\/in\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in\/elegalix\/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=8875<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in\/elegalix\/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=8875<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/lawbeat.in\/top-stories\/hiding-facts-is-playing-fraud-on-court-allahabad-high-court-fines-man-rs-15k-for-abusing-pil-process-1514141<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/lawbeat.in\/top-stories\/hiding-facts-is-playing-fraud-on-court-allahabad-high-court-fines-man-rs-15k-for-abusing-pil-process-1514141<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Inder Chand Jain<br><\/strong>Ph no: 8279945021, Email: inderjain2007@rediffmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The ancient Latin maxim \u201cFraus et jus nunquam cohabitant\u201d \u2014 \u201cfraud and justice never dwell together\u201d \u2014 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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":16071,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[775,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-16044","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-constitutional-law","8":"tag-constitutional-law","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/fraus-et-jus-nunquam-cohabitant-fraud-on-court-india.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16044\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}