Every remedy this site has examined in the Supreme Court series — the SLP itself, interim relief, condonation of delay, settlement at the SLP stage — rests on a single foundation that deserves its own treatment: the petitioner's duty of full and fair disclosure. Because leave under Article 136 is discretionary and granted ex parte at the threshold, the Court acts on the petitioner's narrative alone at the most consequential moment of the case. The price of that trust is candour. A petition that suppresses or misstates a material fact is liable to be dismissed on that ground without examination of the merits, with costs, and with consequences that can outlast the case.
Why candour is the currency of Article 136
The structural feature that makes disclosure decisive is the ex parte grant of leave and interim relief. At first listing, no respondent is present; the Court reads the synopsis, the impugned judgment and the grounds, and decides in minutes whether to issue notice and whether to stay a decree, a conviction, a demolition. Discretion exercised on one side’s papers presupposes that those papers tell the whole story. The equitable maxim that one who seeks discretionary relief must come with clean hands is therefore not decoration in SLP practice — it is the operating system.
The recurring forms of suppression
| Pattern | Example | Usual outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Concealed prior rounds | Earlier SLP on the same order withdrawn without liberty, not mentioned | Dismissal; the withdrawal itself generally bars the second petition |
| Half-told interim history | Stay obtained below and vacated for abuse — only the grant disclosed | Interim relief vacated; costs |
| Parallel proceedings | Writ or suit pending on the same subject in another forum | Dismissal for forum shopping |
| Suppressed subsequent events | Property sold, possession handed over, settlement executed after the impugned order | Petition rendered speculative; discretionary refusal |
| Own non-compliance | Petitioner in breach of the very order challenged, or absconding in a criminal matter | Refusal to hear until compliance; surrender requirements enforced |
The drafting discipline that protects a petition
- Chronology first. Build the list of dates from the certified record before drafting grounds; every proceeding between the parties enters it, favourable or not.
- Answer the Rules’ questions literally. The averment about earlier similar petitions is a trap for the careless — "similar" is read broadly, and a withdrawn or defective-and-not-refiled petition must be stated.
- Disclose the bad fact and argue it. An adverse interim finding disclosed and explained rarely kills a petition; the same finding discovered by the respondent at the notice stage usually does.
- Update the record. Material developments after filing — compliance, settlements, connected orders — go on record by additional affidavit; the duty of candour is continuing.
- Mind the annexures. Filing a truncated order or omitting the operative paragraphs of the impugned judgment is treated as suppression, not as economy.
When suppression surfaces later
Concealment discovered after leave is granted does not merely embarrass counsel; it dissolves the foundation of the proceedings. The Court can revoke leave, dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process, and restore the parties to the position the concealment disturbed — including by directing restitution where interim orders conferred benefits. The Advocate-on-Record’s certificate means the professional consequences are not abstract either: the AoR system exists precisely to give the Court an officer answerable for the accuracy of what is filed.
The other side of the coin
For respondents, suppression is the most efficient answer available. A counter-affidavit that establishes concealment of a material fact converts the hearing from the merits — where the petitioner chose the terrain — to conduct, where the discretionary jurisdiction gives no shelter. Building that answer means reconstructing the full procedural history from the courts below, including what the petitioner filed and abandoned; registry records and certified copies do this work far better than adjectives.
Practice note: The reliable test before filing is to ask what the respondent’s first page will say. If any fact in that imagined page is absent from the synopsis, the petition is not ready. Candour, apart from being obligatory, is also tactically superior: the petitioner who states the difficult fact first also frames it first.
Frequently Asked Questions
What counts as a "material" fact for disclosure purposes?
Anything with a realistic capacity to influence the exercise of discretion: earlier proceedings between the parties and their outcomes, prior petitions filed and withdrawn, interim orders and their violations, parallel proceedings pending in other forums, subsequent events that alter the dispute, and the petitioner's own conduct — including non-compliance with the orders under challenge.
Where in the SLP is disclosure made?
Throughout, but three places carry formal weight: the list of dates and synopsis, which must present a fair chronology; the specific averment required by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as to whether any similar petition was earlier filed in the Supreme Court or High Court and with what result; and the certificate of the Advocate-on-Record. False or evasive statements in any of them are treated as suppression.
What are the consequences of suppression?
Dismissal of the petition on the ground of suppression alone, revocation of leave already granted when the concealment surfaces later, vacation of interim orders obtained on the incomplete narrative, exemplary costs, and in egregious cases proceedings for contempt or perjury-adjacent action. The taint also follows the litigant into any future discretionary relief in the same lis.
Does the duty apply to respondents too?
A respondent resisting notice is subject to the general obligation not to mislead the court, and counter-affidavits inviting discretionary orders — such as vacation of stay — attract the same standards. But the threshold duty is the petitioner's, because the ex parte stage belongs to the petitioner alone.