http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7174 of 2004

PETITIONER: Lillykutty                                                               

RESPONDENT: Scrutiny Committee, S.C. & S.T. & Others                         

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/10/2005

BENCH: S.B. Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J :

       Although, I respectfully agree with the judgment and order proposed  to be pronounced by Brother, Thakker, J., I would like to add a few words.

       Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in view of the constitutional  provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India  occupy a special position.  Protective discrimination and affirmative action  for the downtrodden people are envisaged in our constitutional scheme  despite the fact that the equality clause enshrined under  Article 14 of the  Constitution of India is of great significance.  [See E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State  of A.P. and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 394]         When, thus, a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or  Scheduled Tribes obtains a false certificate with a view to gain undue  advantage to which he or she was not otherwise entitled to would amount to  commission of fraud.  Fraudulent acts are not encouraged by the courts.  A  person for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the Presidential Order  must fulfil the condition of being a member of Scheduled Castes and  continue to be so.  Conversion of a member of Scheduled Castes to a  different religion may not, in certain circumstances, deprive him of the said  benefits although there appears to be some divergence of views in this  regard. [See State of Kerala and another Vs. Chandramohanan, (2004) 3  SCC 429 and Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and  Others, (2005) 2 SCC 244].   In this case, however, even the said question  does not arise.

       In Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others [(2003) 8 SCC  319], this Court held:

"15\005Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn  act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. 16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words,  which induces the other person or authority to take  a definite determinative stand as a response to the  conduct of the former either by word or letter."

       It was further held:

"18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called  deceit and consists in leading a man into damage  by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe  and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party  makes representations which he knows to be false,  and injury ensues therefrom although the motive  from which the representations proceeded may not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

have been bad.

23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed  seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to  deprive the rights of the others in relation to a  property would render the transaction void ab  initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. 24. In Arlidge & Parry on Fraud, it is stated at p.          21: "Indeed, the word sometimes appears to be  virtually synonymous with ’deception’, as in the  offence (now repealed) of obtaining credit by  fraud. It is true that in this context ’fraud’ included  certain kinds of conduct which did not amount to  false pretences, since the definition referred to an  obtaining of credit ’under false pretences, or by  means of any other fraud’. In Jones, for example, a  man who ordered a meal without pointing out that  he had no money was held to be guilty of obtaining  credit by fraud but not of obtaining the meal by  false pretences: his conduct, though fraudulent, did  not amount to a false pretence. Similarly, it has  been suggested that a charge of conspiracy to  defraud may be used where a ’false front’ has been  presented to the public (e.g. a business appears to  be reputable and creditworthy when in fact it is  neither) but there has been nothing so concrete as a  false pretence. However, the concept of deception  (as defined in the Theft Act, 1968) is broader than  that of a false pretence in that (inter alia) it  includes a misrepresentation as to the defendant’s  intentions; both Jones and the ’false front’ could  now be treated as cases of obtaining property by  deception." 25. Although in a given case a deception may not  amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable  principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot  be perpetuated or saved by the application of any  equitable doctrine including res judicata. 26. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. it has been  held that: (SCC p.      553, para 20) "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most  solemn proceedings in any civilized system of  jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human  conduct.""

       [See also Vijay Shekhar and Another Vs. Union of India and others,  (2004) 4 SCC 666 and Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and  Another Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325]

       Yet recently in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and  Ors. [JT 2005 (7) SC 530], a Division Bench of this Court inter alia  following Ram Chandra Singh  (supra) and other decisions observed:

"17. "Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words,  which induces the other person or authority to take  a definite determinative stand as a response to the  conduct of the former either by words or letter\005"

                In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 All ER 341]  the Court of  Appeal stated the law thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

"I cannot accede to this argument for a moment.  No court in this land will allow a person to keep an  advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No  judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be  allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud.  Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not  to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and  proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments,  contracts and all transactions whatsoever;"

       [See also Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and  Intermediate Education and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 311]

       Any action by the authorities or by the people claiming a right/  privilege under the Constitution which subverts the constitutional purpose  must be treated as a fraud on the Constitution.  The Constitution does not  postulate conferment of any special benefit on those who do not belong to  the category of people for whom the provision was made.

       The fraud committed by the Appellant for obtaining unlawful gain has  been found as of fact by a statutory committee.  The said finding of fact has  not been interfered with by the High Court.  No case has  been made out for  us to take a different view.