In Brief
The applicant, an illiterate person who customarily used thumb impressions on documents, claimed he did not authorize or sign a Special Leave Petition filed in his name. The Supreme Court investigated and found that the Advocate-on-Record who filed the petition failed to comply with mandatory identity verification and certification requirements under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court held that the applicant did not sign the petition's Vakalatnama or supporting affidavit, but his custody (already ordered following the petition's judicial dismissal) could not be nullified. The petition was treated as having been filed only by the other four petitioners, and the Court emphasized the importance of proper identity verification procedures by Advocates-on-Record."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.