Supreme Court puzzled as another advocate denies involvement in land dispute case

New Delhi, July 30, 2025 The mystery surrounding the controversial ‘ghost litigant’ in the Supreme Court has deepened. A third lawyer, named in official court records, has now publicly disassociated himself from the case. This growing confusion raises serious concerns about legal impersonation and manipulation in sensitive litigation.

On Tuesday, the third lawyer appeared before the Supreme Court and firmly denied any knowledge of the ghost litigant case. He said he played no role in the proceedings. His statement followed similar denials by Advocates Ratan Lal Sinha and Atul S Chandurkar, who also distanced themselves from the controversial land dispute.The fourth lawyer mentioned in court filings remains unidentified, further complicating the investigation.

On Tuesday, the third lawyer appeared before the Supreme Court and firmly denied any knowledge of the ghost litigant case. He said he played no role in the proceedings. His statement followed similar denials by Advocates Ratan Lal Sinha and Atul S Chandurkar, who also distanced themselves from the controversial land dispute. This deception influenced the apex court to quash lower court decisions.

In response to the chaos, both the SCBA and SCAORA clarified that no genuine legal professional took part in the wrongdoing. They clarified that none of the listed lawyers had filed any documents or made submissions in the case. These developments suggest a deeper conspiracy involving forged identities and manipulated court records.

During the December proceedings, the Supreme Court passed an order based on a compromise agreement that was never actually filed. The official court records reflected a fabricated consent by four advocates, none of whom had any connection to the matter. Legal experts argue that such manipulation of the court’s trust threatens the integrity of the entire judicial system. It remains unclear how such a ghost litigant was able to pass through multiple verification layers undetected.

Although the fake respondent filed a caveat, the court later found it was never registered by the registry. Consequently, legal observers are urging for stricter checks and identity verification procedures in all filings. The bench has now sought a detailed probe into how this lapse occurred and whether more such ghost litigants have influenced past rulings. Judicial safeguards may need significant reinforcement to prevent similar breaches.

Source