False Statement or Bona Fide Mistake: When Is a Mistake in Court Documents Perjury or Contempt?

Errors in pleadings, affidavits and documents are common. This article examines the distinction between a bona fide mistake/ inadvertent “wrong” statement and a deliberate “false” statement under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the protection the law gives to bona fide mistakes, typographical slips and inadvertent errors.

Introduction

While bringing a case to court, a litigant is required to make a plethora of filings, including pleadings, affidavits and documentary evidence. In the heat of litigation or complex drafting, documents submitted to judicial forums occasionally contain errors or factual inaccuracies. This raises vital questions: Is such conduct automatically punishable? Under which specific laws can a court take punitive action? And what legal defences can a party plead to avoid criminal liability or contempt proceedings when incorrect documents are inadvertently filed?

Understanding the legal consequences of such errors is essential for both litigants and practitioners. Courts draw a sharp distinction between bona fide mistakes and deliberate falsehoods. Knowing this boundary helps parties avoid unnecessary prosecution or contempt proceedings while ensuring that only intentional attempts to mislead the court attract penal consequences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Statutory Penalties for Filing False Documents under the BNS

Consider a litigant, Rohit, who files documents containing errors in court. Under Indian penal law, filing false or fabricated records is punishable under both penal and contempt laws. The key statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are:

• Section 227 BNS (Giving False Evidence): Applies when a person who is legally bound by an oath, or by an express provision of law, to state the truth makes a statement which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true. This mental element is the heart of the offence; where it is missing, there is no criminal liability.
• Section 228 BNS (Fabricating False Evidence): Applies when a party creates a false entry or document intending it to be used as evidence and to cause the court to form an erroneous opinion on a material issue. Specific intent (mens rea) to mislead is mandatory.
• Section 229 BNS (Punishment for False Evidence): Prescribes imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine (which may extend to ₹10,000) where false evidence is given or fabricated for use in a judicial proceeding, and imprisonment of up to three years and a fine in any other case.

These provisions correspond to the former Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Procedural Filters and Contempt of Court Proceedings

Courts do not mechanically order criminal prosecution whenever an error is discovered in judicial filings. Specific procedural rules and judicial safeguards must be followed.

Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS

An aggrieved party cannot directly file a private criminal complaint for perjury committed in court proceedings. Section 215 BNSS bars a Magistrate from taking cognizance of such an offence except on a complaint in writing by the court concerned. The party must therefore move an application under Section 379 BNSS before the court in which the statement was made. That court may hold a preliminary inquiry to satisfy itself whether an offence appears to have been committed. Only if it finds that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice will it record a finding and make a formal written complaint to a competent Magistrate.

Note: A party discovering an error should promptly file a correction or amendment application supported by an explanation on affidavit. Courts give weight to whether the mistake was corrected before the opposite side pointed it out and whether it was material.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Filing misleading affidavits, suppressing material facts or submitting doctored records directly interferes with the due administration of justice and constitutes criminal contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995), the Supreme Court held that filing false affidavits or fabricating evidence in judicial proceedings amounts to criminal contempt, as it obstructs justice and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Similarly, in In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a person who makes a false statement before the court and attempts to deceive it interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of court.

Legal Defences: Bona Fide Errors vs. Criminal Contempt

What if Rohit filed the erroneous document without any mala fide intention, as a result of a bona fide mistake, an inadvertent oversight or a clerical typo? Supreme Court jurisprudence confirms that bona fide mistakes or typographical slips made without deliberate intent do not warrant criminal prosecution or punishment for contempt.

Judicial Dicta Protecting Innocent Errors

In Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. (1971), the Supreme Court emphasised caution when initiating perjury proceedings:

“No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand, but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial…”

In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. (2014), the Supreme Court explained that contempt requires ‘wilful’ disobedience:

“Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’… ‘Wilful’ means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.”

In Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors , the Court reiterated that casual, accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience, under circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, amount to contempt in theory only and do not render the contemnor liable to punishment.

Most recently, in Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar (2026), while quashing a perjury prosecution that had been directed under Section 340 of the CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS) over alleged misstatements in an appeal memo and stay application, the Supreme Court drew a sharp legal distinction between a ‘wrong statement’ and a ‘false statement’:

“The gravity of a statement that is false is definitely greater than that of a statement that is wrong. Inadvertent errors or mistakes in a statement could be termed as a ‘wrong statement’. However, a ‘false statement’ would imply something more than a mere untruth as it carries with it an intent to deceive coupled with knowledge, actual or constructive.”

The Five Guiding Principles for Perjury Prosecution

In James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2024), the Supreme Court, drawing on Chajoo Ram and later precedent, summarised five principles that a court must apply before ordering prosecution for filing false evidence:

1. Prima Facie Ground: The Court must form a prima facie opinion that sufficient and reasonable grounds exist.
2. Expediency in the Interest of Justice: Proceedings should be initiated only when expedient in the interests of justice, not merely because of immaterial inaccuracies.
3. Substantive Falsehood: There must be deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.
4. Distinct Foundation of Evidence: The charge must rest on distinct evidence rather than mere suspicion.
5. Exceptional Circumstances: Prosecution should be reserved for exceptional cases, such as where a party has perjured itself to obtain beneficial orders.

Conclusion

While filing doctored records or false affidavits with intent to deceive constitutes criminal contempt and an offence under Sections 227–229 of the BNS, a bona fide clerical or typographical error lacks the essential mental element (mens rea) of intent to deceive. Courts strictly distinguish between a ‘wrong statement’ (an inadvertent error) and a ‘false statement’ (an intentional untruth). Innocent litigants and counsel who act promptly to correct clerical or typographical mistakes remain protected; only intentional deception attracts criminal or contempt consequences.

References

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 227, 228 and 229.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 215 and 379.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c).
• Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757.
• In Re: Perry Kansagra, Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021, Supreme Court, judgment dated 11 July 2022.
• Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr., (1971) 1 SCC 774.
• Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 204.
• Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 770.
• Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., 2026 INSC 724 : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1367 (decided 21 July 2026).
• James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 601 (decided 13 August 2024).

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/can-vs-must-in-arbitration-clauses/