The concerned AoR, Mr. S, told the top court that he had not met any of the petitioners. Instead, the applicant had met Mr.R, an advocate working with him.
Mr.R, on turn stated that the petitioners had approached him through their local advocate at Allahabad. He stated that all of them visited his office-Âcum-Âresidence and signed the Vakalatnama in his presence and the applicant signed the affidavit in support of the Special Leave Petition as he was the first petitioner.
“It is not the case made out that he knew the applicant or for that matter, any other petitioners. He has not stated that anyone personally known to him had introduced the applicant to him. He has not stated that he had verified the identity of the applicant after perusing his Aadhaar or PAN Card. He has not stated that the affidavit in support of the Special Leave Petition was affirmed by the applicant in presence of a Notary Public,” the Court noted in its order.
The Court said that when Mr.R did not personally know the petitioners and when they were not accompanied by a local advocate or anyone who was known to him, it was his duty to verify the identity of the petitioners who came to his office on the basis of the documents such as Aadhaar card or PAN card
Further, the Court said that the AoR should have satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama.
verified the identity of the petitioners who came to his office through official documents.
“As required by subÂ-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 7, it was the duty of Mr.S to make an endorsement on the Vakalatnama that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. It was his duty to make an endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules,” the Court said.
In view of the above, the Court held that applicant’s contention of not signing the vakalatnama will have to be accepted.
However, the action of taking the applicant into custody cannot be nullified, the Court added.
Source: Barandbench
