Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/1344/2006; 2006(3)SCALE104, (2006)3SCC374.
For the present purposes, by way of juridical history, a reference to an earlier decision, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/
0322/2004 , should suffice.
3 There arise many issues here. First, the verses put together do not merely address the role of witnesses in the administration of justice. Second, the expression
'unfounded falsehood' in Verse 14 makes allowance for differentiation between deliberate falsehood as opposed to that 'founded' by circumstance of coercion.
Third, whereas Verse 14 speaks of destruction of judges by 'sin' of falsehood, the consequences of a 'wrong decision in a Court of law' stand articulated less severely
by Verse 18. Moral or spiritual responsibility for a wrong decision is to be attributed to all in equal proportion, and not entirely on an erring or sinful (adharmic)
witness. Fourth, the issue of punishment for adharmic and even sinful falsehoods is not at all addressed by the Verse here cited. But the implication of Verse 14 seems
clear enough. What destroys the place/seat of justice is adharmic sin committed in the presence of Judges whereas the consequences of adharma flowing from a
'wrong' judicial decision remain described in far less apocalyptic terms. Manu- Samhita carefully grades the order of adharmic sins and calibrates various cosmic
(life-cycle) punishments.
Clearly, even as embellishments setting the tone and tenor for the Zahira decision, this invocation perplexes. The Justices obviously need some detailed research
assistance from Pundits on this score. Alas! Such dedication of state revenues remain unavailable as infringing standards and ideals of constitutional secularism
pronounced by the authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court of India itself!