Delhi High Court Says Fake Caste Certificate Alone Cannot Remove Lawyer From Advocate Rolls
“It must also be proved that the fraud contributed materially in getting the name of the advocate entered on the State roll”, the Court said.
Inclusion of a disputed or forged caste certificate cannot be grounds for decalling enrollment of an advocate on the roll at the instance of Bar Council of India (BCI) by the Delhi High Court held
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made it clear that Section 26(1) of Advocates Act does not confer any unrestrained power on the BCI to delete the name of an advocate from the roll merely because that person had made an incorrect statement or furnished a non-genuine document at some stage of the procedure for enrolment as an advocate.
“This Court therefore holds that the mere furnishing of the disputed Caste Certificate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be treated as sufficient to attract the provision to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act. Respondent No.2 (BCI) was expected to be satisfied not merely that the petitioner had furnished a fabricated document but that she had got her name entered on the roll of advocates by fraud or by misrepresentation as to an essential fact”, the Court said.
The Bench observed that an allegation of fraud cannot lead to an inquiry stopping at the finding that a fabricated document was furnished.
“It must also be proved that the fraud materially contributed in getting the name of the advocate entered on the State roll”, the Court said.
It further said that if a candidate submits a forged law degree/license/mark sheet for proving her eligibility, then the position would be much different. The same would also be true where a candidate falsely claimed a particular caste status to avail benefit of reservation/relaxation in qualification/ Marks%, which was neither available to her nor would have got her enrolment as an advocate without such reservation/relaxation.
Justice Sharma made the above observations while allowing the appeal filed by advocate Dipinder Kaur challenging the removal of her name from the rolls of Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) by BCI.
Kaur was a candidate for contesting the BCD elections for the term 2026 when complaints were received against her caste certificate. Thereafter, she was removed from the rolls by BCI vide order dated May 7. Subsequently, the candidature of the petitioner was also cancelled by the BCD Election Committee on May 12.
The High Court noted that it was found that the impugned OBC certificate relied upon by Kaur did not enable her to get admission in LLB course or get her law degree.
“The certificate did not help her even for admission to LLB course. The petitioner got her law degree with graduation marks at 44.5%. As per the Resolution dated March 15, 2019 of respondent Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), cases where a candidate has secured less than 45% marks but has gone on to obtain a degree in law from any institution recognized by BCI are liable to be considered for enrolment.” Hence, there was no fact misrepresented by her nor was there a fraud committed by her in getting herself enrolled as an advocate, the Court said.
While the Court set aside BCI order, it said that finding of Kaur furnishing disputed caste certificate was upheld and she was reprimanded for that.
Advocates Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha (Senior) with Amitabh Narendra, Naginder Benipal, Sanjay Gupta, Ramit Malhotra, Amit Chaudhary, Ankit Siwach, Vignesh, Harjas Singh, Dhruv Tomar, Atin Chadha, Saarthak Sethi and Jaskaran appeared for the petitioner.
Advocates Tanishq Srivastava, Bhanu Gulati, Anum Hussain, Yamini Singh, Sourabh Kumar and Sidhika Nagrath along with Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta and T Singhdev appeared for the respondent Bar Council of Delhi.
