Supreme Court rebukes TGSRTC officials for filing misleading affidavit
Supreme Court slammed TGSRTC for hiding a pending SLP, questioning officials over misleading claims and improper handling of the employee regularisation case.
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 18, delivered a stern rebuke to senior officials of the Telangana Government State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC), criticizing them for filing an affidavit that omitted a key detail — a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) related to the same employee regularisation case. The omission, the bench suggested, was not merely an oversight but a serious lapse that risked misleading the court.
The case revolves around the regularisation of 18 contract-based employees of TGSRTC, an issue that has been winding through the judicial system for some time. When the corporation submitted its affidavit before the Supreme Court, it claimed that the employees’ services had already been regularised and that any pending payments would be released in line with the High Court’s earlier directions. But the bench quickly noticed something troubling: the affidavit made no mention of an SLP that was still pending before the Supreme Court on a related matter — a fact that should have been disclosed upfront.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vinay Bishnoi expressed clear displeasure and demanded an explanation from the TGSRTC Managing Director and the corporation’s legal officer, both of whom were present in the courtroom. Their presence had been mandated earlier, on November 10, when Justice Maheshwari instructed them to appear personally after expressing concern over inconsistencies in the affidavit.
During the hearing, the bench pointedly questioned the officials about the misleading statements. Justice Maheshwari asked why the affidavit suggested that payments would be made according to the High Court’s order even though the matter was currently before the Supreme Court. “When the matter is pending before this Court, how can you say payments will be made as per the High Court’s directions?” he asked sharply.
The judges emphasized that the corporation should have clearly stated that any payments or actions would depend solely on the final order passed by the Supreme Court. The omission, they noted, could potentially influence the court into believing that the regularisation issue had already been resolved and that only financial calculations remained — a misleading impression given the pending petition.
“Are TGSRTC officials trying to show their smartness here, in the Supreme Court?” Justice Maheshwari asked, signalling the extent of the court’s displeasure. The rhetorical question underscored how seriously the bench viewed the attempt to gloss over key legal facts.
The bench further observed that the affidavit gave the appearance of being carelessly or deliberately structured to skip over the existence of the SLP. Such lapses, especially when made in filings before the highest court in the country, were unacceptable, the judges noted. Filing inaccurate or incomplete statements before the Supreme Court, they said, was a breach of both legal protocol and professional responsibility.
As a consequence, Justice Maheshwari instructed the TGSRTC Managing Director and the legal officer to bear their own travel expenses for appearing before the court. “Learn a lesson from this mistake,” he remarked, suggesting that the penalty was intended not merely as punishment but as a warning against any future attempt to withhold or distort relevant information.
Advocate Giri, representing TGSRTC, assured the court that the officials had understood the seriousness of the lapse and would strictly follow the Supreme Court’s directions going forward. He also assured the bench that the corporation would ensure accuracy and transparency in all future submissions.
The incident has raised questions about administrative accountability within government-run corporations and the degree of diligence required when filing affidavits in sensitive legal matters. Legal experts noted that even a minor omission can have major implications, particularly in cases involving employment rights and policy decisions. When such matters are brought before the Supreme Court, every detail becomes crucial — and any attempt, accidental or otherwise, to misrepresent facts can seriously undermine the credibility of the institution involved.
For the affected employees, the case remains in limbo as the Supreme Court continues to hear arguments. Their future now hinges on the final decision of the court, which will determine whether their services will be regularised fully and what financial entitlements they may receive. But for TGSRTC officials, the message from the bench was unmistakable: transparency is not optional. Public institutions must uphold the highest standards of honesty, especially when dealing with the country’s top court.
As the matter proceeds, the Supreme Court’s reprimand stands as a reminder that affidavits are not mere formalities — they are sworn documents that must convey the entire truth, and nothing less.