Can False Pleadings Lead to Perjury Proceedings Before the High Court Under Section 379 BNSS?

The Indian judicial system is founded on one cardinal principle—truth. Every litigant, advocate, public authority, and government department appearing before a court is legally expected to make truthful statements, file genuine documents, and disclose all material facts.

Whenever a party deliberately files a false affidavit, fabricated document, misleading written statement, or suppresses material facts to obtain a favorable judicial order, the law empowers the court to initiate criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

Following the implementation of India's new criminal laws on 1 July 2024, applications relating to false evidence are now governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) instead of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

This article explains the latest law, important Supreme Court judgments, the procedure for filing a perjury application, and the legal principles governing false evidence before constitutional courts.

India's New Criminal Laws (Effective from 1 July 2024)

India replaced three colonial criminal statutes with new legislation.

Earlier Law	Present Law
Indian Penal Code, 1860	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

Although the statutory provisions have been renumbered, the objective remains the same—to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings and punish deliberate falsehoods placed before courts.

What is a Perjury Application?

A perjury application is a request asking the court to examine whether a person has intentionally committed offences relating to false evidence during judicial proceedings.

The purpose is not to punish every incorrect statement but to protect the administration of justice where there is prima facie material showing deliberate deception of the court.

Section 379 BNSS – The New Provision

The procedure that was previously contained in Section 340 CrPC is now substantially reflected in Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Where it appears that offences affecting the administration of justice have been committed during proceedings before a court, the court may:

• conduct a preliminary inquiry if necessary;

• record its satisfaction;

• make a written complaint;

• forward the complaint to the competent Magistrate.

The power is discretionary and is exercised only where the interests of justice require prosecution.

Relevant Offences Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

False evidence before a court may attract provisions relating to:

• Giving false evidence

• Fabricating false evidence

• Using fabricated evidence

• False declarations

• False certificates

• Using false certificates

• Forgery, where applicable

The exact provision depends upon the nature of the alleged misconduct and the applicable law.

When Can the High Court Initiate Perjury Proceedings?

A High Court may examine whether proceedings should be initiated where there is prima facie material showing that a party has:

• filed a false affidavit;

• produced fabricated documents;

• knowingly relied upon false evidence;

• made false declarations before the court;

• intentionally suppressed material facts;

• attempted to mislead the court through false pleadings.

However, courts have repeatedly clarified that every incorrect statement does not amount to perjury.

The falsehood must ordinarily be:

• intentional;

• material; and

• capable of influencing the judicial decision.

Illustrative Example

Suppose a writ petitioner challenges a recruitment process.

The petitioner alleges that the respondent authority filed written statements asserting:

• two educational qualifications were interchangeable despite statutory provisions suggesting otherwise;

• incorrect selection marks were relied upon;

• statutory provisions and approved nomenclature were ignored;

• those written statements materially influenced the outcome of the litigation.

If supported by documentary evidence, the petitioner may request the High Court to examine whether such conduct warrants proceedings under Section 379 BNSS (formerly Section 340 CrPC).

Whether prosecution should actually be initiated depends entirely upon the court's independent satisfaction on the evidence and the applicable law.

Essential Ingredients of Perjury

Before initiating proceedings, courts generally consider whether:

1. The Statement Was False

The statement must be factually incorrect.

2. The Person Knew It Was False

The person must have knowingly made the statement or not believed it to be true.

3. The Falsehood Was Material

The statement should relate to an issue capable of affecting the judicial decision.

4. There Was Intent to Mislead

The evidence should indicate a deliberate attempt to obtain a favorable judicial order through falsehood.

Supreme Court on Truth and Justice

Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012)

The Supreme Court observed:

• Truth is the foundation of justice.

• Judges must actively search for truth.

• Every judicial proceeding should be directed towards discovering the real facts.

The Court reiterated:

"Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest."

Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court held that filing false affidavits amounts to interference with the administration of justice and cannot be lightly ignored.

Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora

The Court observed that false affidavits strike at the Rule of Law and undermine public confidence in judicial institutions.

K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

The Supreme Court emphasized that every litigant must approach the writ court with clean hands and disclose all material facts honestly.

Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma

The Court held that persons attempting to pollute the stream of justice by fabricated documents or falsehood should be dealt with firmly in accordance with law.

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court observed that suppression of material facts or attempts to mislead the court may justify refusal of relief and appropriate legal action.

Conditions for Initiating Proceedings Under Section 379 BNSS

The court generally examines two important questions:

Is there a Prima Facie Case?

The available material should indicate that offences relating to false evidence appear to have been committed.

Is Prosecution Expedient in the Interests of Justice?

Even if a false statement appears to exist, prosecution is not automatic.

The court must independently determine whether initiating criminal proceedings is necessary to protect the administration of justice.

Is Every False Statement Perjury?

No.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that criminal prosecution should not be initiated merely because a statement ultimately turns out to be incorrect.

There must generally be evidence showing:

• deliberate falsehood;

• materiality;

• intention; and

• probable impact on the judicial decision.

Powers of the High Court

Where proceedings are pending before or have been decided by the High Court, the Court may:

• conduct a preliminary inquiry;

• call for records where appropriate;

• record findings regarding the alleged commission of offences;

• make a complaint before the competent Magistrate under Section 379 BNSS.

The power is exercised cautiously because prosecution for perjury is regarded as an exceptional remedy.

Practical Checklist Before Filing a Perjury Application

Before approaching the High Court, ensure that:

✔ Documentary evidence clearly establishes the alleged falsehood.

✔ The alleged false statement materially affected the judicial proceedings.

✔ The application identifies the exact affidavit, written statement, or document complained of.

✔ Relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents are cited.

✔ The application demonstrates why prosecution would serve the interests of justice.

Why Truth Matters

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that courts exist for discovering truth.

Justice cannot survive where:

• fabricated documents are relied upon;

• false affidavits become routine;

• public authorities suppress material records;

• litigants deliberately mislead constitutional courts.

Truth is not merely a moral obligation—it is a legal duty.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a High Court initiate perjury proceedings on its own?

Yes. Where the High Court forms an opinion that offences affecting the administration of justice appear to have been committed during proceedings before it, it may act in accordance with Section 379 BNSS.

Is every false affidavit punishable?

No. The court must be satisfied that the falsehood was intentional, material, and that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice.

Can false written statements amount to criminal liability?

Knowingly false statements in pleadings or evidence may attract the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, subject to the facts and the court's findings.

Can Supreme Court judgments decide under the CrPC still be relied upon?

Yes. Earlier Supreme Court judgments interpreting provisions corresponding to the current BNSS framework continue to have persuasive value unless they are inconsistent with the new statutory provisions.

Conclusion

The replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has modernized India's criminal justice framework without altering the fundamental principle that judicial proceedings must be founded on truth.

Section 379 BNSS empowers courts, in appropriate cases, to initiate proceedings where there is prima facie material showing that false evidence, fabricated documents, or misleading pleadings have been intentionally used to influence judicial proceedings. At the same time, courts exercise this power cautiously, ensuring that prosecution is ordered only when it is expedient in the interests of justice.

Every litigant, advocate, public authority, and government official owes a continuing duty of honesty, fairness, and full disclosure before the court. The credibility of the justice delivery system depends upon the integrity of pleadings and evidence placed before it.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us, truth remains the foundation of justice and preserving that principle is essential for maintaining public confidence in the rule of law.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts, the applicable statutory provisions, and the interpretation adopted by the competent court. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking legal action.