Filing a false affidavit or swearing to a false affidavit is a serious offence and can have significant legal consequences.
1. What is an Affidavit?
An affidavit is a sworn written statement of fact that is used as evidence in legal proceedings.
2. Filing false affidavit is an Offence
When a person submits a false affidavit, they are committing perjury since they are providing misleading information to the court or authorities. Filing a false affidavit leads to significant legal consequences and the person(s) involved are liable to face criminal, civil and/or professional penalties including contempt of court proceedings.
3. Legal Consequences of Filing a False Affidavit
Being a serious offence, filing a false affidavit can result in several legal consequences, both criminal and civil. The consequences can vary depending on the nature of the false information, the intent behind filing the affidavit, and the specific legal context. Below are the key legal consequences of filing a false affidavit:
3.1 Criminal Liability (Perjury): Filing false affidavit
Perjury is the act of knowingly providing false information while under oath, either in a written statement or during testimony. Therefore, filing a false affidavit under oath amounts to perjury.
3.1.1 Punishment for Perjury
Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the term giving false evidence, while Section 193 deals with the punishment for perjury. In case the filed affidavit involves false evidence, the person can be charged under Section 191 for giving false evidence.
Perjury is a criminal offence under Section 193 of IPC. If the affidavit is sworn under oath and the information within it is knowingly false, it can lead to perjury charges. If found guilty, a person can be punished with imprisonment for up to seven years, along with a fine.
3.2 Contempt of Court: Filing false affidavit
Filing a false affidavit that misleads the court or obstructs justice can lead to charges of contempt of court. Contempt of court is an act that disrespects or undermines the authority, integrity, or dignity of the court.
Civil Contempt: If the false affidavit is used in violation of a court order, it can be deemed as civil contempt.
Criminal Contempt: If the affidavit is intentionally misleading or disruptive to the judicial process, it could lead to criminal contempt.
Contempt of Court can result in penalties such as fines or imprisonment, and the individual may be directed to compensate the other party for any harm caused due to the false affidavit.
3.3 Civil Liability: Filing false affidavit
In civil cases, if an affidavit is found to be false, the party submitting it may face financial penalties, including the possibility of losing the case or being ordered to pay damages to the other party for any harm caused.
Damages and Compensation: The party harmed by the false affidavit may seek compensation for damages caused due to the falsehood. In civil cases, if it is proven that an affidavit was filed with false information, the affected party may be awarded financial damages.
Dismissal of the Case: In some cases, if a party submits a false affidavit, the court may dismiss their claim or defense. The filing of a false affidavit can result in losing the case, even if the original claim might have had merit.
Loss of Legal Standing: The party filing a false affidavit could lose their right to continue with their legal claims, or the opposing party may use the false affidavit as a basis to seek an adverse judgment.
3.4 Disqualification or Disbarment (for Lawyers): Filing false affidavit
If an advocate / attorney files a false affidavit, they could face professional consequences, such as disbarment or suspension from practicing law.
Disbarment or Suspension: Legal professionals, including lawyers, who file false affidavits or who knowingly assist clients in submitting false affidavits can face disciplinary action. This may include suspension or disbarment from practicing law.
Loss of Reputation: Lawyers who engage in unethical practices like submitting false affidavits risk losing their professional credibility, which can have long-term effects on their career.
Criminal Liability for Lawyers: If a lawyer knowingly submits a false affidavit, they can be personally liable for perjury or contempt of court, in addition to facing professional disciplinary actions.
3.5 Fraud and Misrepresentation: Filing false affidavit
Fraud Charges: If the false affidavit is part of a broader scheme to defraud the court or another party, the individual may be charged with fraud. Fraud can result in criminal liability under Section 420 of the IPC, which provides for imprisonment of up to seven years and fines.
Civil Fraud: In civil cases, filing a false affidavit to mislead the court can lead to claims of fraud, and the individual may be ordered to pay damages and return any benefits obtained fraudulently.
3.6 Additional Penalties and Consequences: Filing false affidavit
In addition to legal penalties, a person who files a false affidavit may lose their credibility in future legal matters, making it difficult for them to win cases or even defend themselves in future legal proceedings.
Invalidation of Documents: Any documents or proceedings influenced by the false affidavit may be declared invalid, and the case may be reopened or retried.
Loss of Credibility: Individuals who file false affidavits may lose their credibility in future legal matters, as the court may view them as unreliable or untrustworthy.
Criminal Records: A conviction for perjury, contempt of court, or fraud can result in a criminal record, which may affect an individual’s future ability to engage in certain activities, including employment and travel.
3.7 Impact on Family Law Cases
In family law matters, such as divorce or child custody cases, filing a false affidavit can influence the court’s decision and may lead to charges of contempt of court or perjury. The court can also alter custody arrangements or make decisions based on the integrity of the parties involved, which can be seriously harmed by filing a false affidavit.
4. Supreme Court Judgments: Filing False Affidavit
a) The Supreme Court of India in Muthu Karuppan vs Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr. AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1645, 2011 (5) SCC 496 held that-
7) Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand.
Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie case of "deliberate falsehood" on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.
8) In a series of decisions, this Court held that the enquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false statement, more so, the court has to determine as on facts whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into offence which appears to have been committed.
9) The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt proceeding being quasi criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in such proceedings.
b) The Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Proceedings Against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate WP (Civil) 77 of 2001 held as under-
In India, law relating to the Offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No, 77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of Article 217 of the constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affidavit of the respondent was known to whom to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true, It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC, With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.
c) In Dhananjay Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795, 1995 (3) SCC 214, the Supreme Court of India held that-
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as "the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalised or tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court; (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice.
5. Conclusion
The legal consequences of filing a false affidavit are severe and wide-ranging. Individuals who knowingly submit false affidavits can face criminal penalties (including imprisonment for perjury or fraud), civil penalties (including damages and case dismissal), professional sanctions (for lawyers), and potential contempt of court charges. The legal system places a high value on the truth. Any dishonesty in legal documents can undermine the administration of justice, leading to serious repercussions.