The Culture of Lying on Oath in Indian Courts

Victims of Wrongful Prosecution Must be Compensated

Newsreel Asia Insight #85
Dec. 27, 2023

The pervasive culture of perjury in Indian courts – termed by the Supreme Court as a “way of life” – has led to a significant erosion of truth, resulting in miscarriages of justice that devastate lives and diminish public trust in the legal system, according to a media report.

Perjury – the offence of lying on oath – is “very common” and fabrication of false evidence is “not uncommon,” says a recent report by the media outlet Article14, citing legal practitioners. This practice, which has been occurring in courts for decades, distorts the judicial process, leading to wrongful decisions by the court.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains laws against perjury and the fabrication of false evidence. In 2001, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity for decisive action against perjury, highlighting the importance of judicial intervention when evidence of such offenses surfaces. Despite this, these laws are rarely enforced, according to the report.

The report highlights the reluctance of courts to prosecute perjury due to overburdened judicial systems and potential misuse of perjury laws by the state.

There’s the sheer volume of cases that Indian courts handle. With millions of cases pending, judges often prioritize matters they deem more urgent, like bail hearings, inadvertently pushing the issue of perjury down the list of priorities.

“If in all such cases, proceedings for perjury are to be filed, not only will that open up floodgates of litigation, but it would also be an abuse of the process of the Court and the courts will not have time for any other matter apart from considering such issues,” a two-judge bench of Justices Alexander Thomas and C.S. Sudha were quoted as saying.

On the potential for perjury prosecutions to be manipulated by the state as a tool against individuals, Rebecca John, a criminal defence lawyer and senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India, was quoted as saying: “The biggest litigant in India is the state. Now if you are going to weaponize these [perjury] provisions against the ordinary citizen and not take parallel action against state agencies who make false statements based on which people are incarcerated, then this is one more weapon in the hands of the system to use against an individual citizen.”

This challenge is compounded by the fact that lawyers, too, have little incentive to pursue perjury charges. Their primary goal is to prove that the evidence against their clients is unreliable, not necessarily to embark on the arduous journey of proving a witness lied.

Another critical aspect is the role of the police in investigations. When the police themselves are implicated in fabricating evidence or coaching witnesses, the pursuit of truth becomes even more convoluted. Asking the police to investigate their own, in cases of alleged perjury, is akin to setting a fox to guard the henhouse.

The historical context adds another layer to this issue. Perjury was prevalent even during the British colonial era, as noted by legal historian Wendie Ellen Schneider, the report says. This historical continuity suggests that the problem is deeply ingrained in the legal culture.

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to lay down guidelines for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution, citing it as a policy decision for the government, further complicates the issue. While the Law Commission of India has recommended legislation for claims of wrongful prosecution, there has been little movement in this direction by the government.

This suggests a troubling disconnect between the legal ideals of truth and integrity and the practical realities of the judicial process. This situation points to a deeper issue of ethical flexibility and a casual attitude towards honesty, especially in formal settings like courts. It also indicates a possible lack of faith in the legal system, where individuals might resort to dishonesty, believing it to be the only way to achieve favourable outcomes in a system perceived as flawed or biased.

Furthermore, this trend highlights the need for societal introspection and reform, emphasising the importance of ethical education and the reinforcement of values like honesty and responsibility in both public and private spheres.