BCI doesn’t have unrestricted power to remove advocate’s name from rolls: Delhi HC

The court held it is not sufficient to establish merely that a fabricated document was submitted in alleged fraud cases

The Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have unrestricted power to remove an advocate’s name from the rolls merely because an advocate submitted a disputed or allegedly fabricated caste certificate at some stage of the enrolment, the Delhi high court said.

The court said it must also be demonstrated that the alleged fraud materially contributed to the advocate’s enrolment. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

A bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma on Friday held that in cases involving allegations of fraud, it is not sufficient to establish merely that a fabricated document was submitted. It added that it must also be demonstrated that the alleged fraud materially contributed to the advocate’s enrolment on a state bar council’s roll.

“Every incorrect statement made by an applicant, or every incorrect declaration contained in an enrolment form, cannot by itself be treated as a misrepresentation as to an essential fact within the meaning of Section 26(1). 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 proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act,” the court said.

The court delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by advocate Dipinder Kaur challenging the BCI decision to remove her name from the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).

Kaur was contesting the 2026 BCD elections when complaints were filed questioning the validity of her caste certificate. The BCI subsequently removed her name from the rolls on May 7, following which the BCD Election Committee cancelled her candidature on May 12.

Kaur’s counsel argued that even if the disputed caste certificate formed part of her enrolment records, its mere presence did not establish that her enrolment had been secured through fraud or misrepresentation of an essential fact.

BCD’s lawyer submitted that Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act empowers the BCI to remove an advocate’s name from the rolls if the enrolment was obtained through misrepresentation of an essential fact, fraud or undue influence.

The BCI’s counsel argued that fraud and undue influence were independent grounds, with the requirement of an “essential fact” applying only to misrepresentation, and the case concerned the validity of Kaur’s entry into the legal profession, rather than subsequent professional misconduct.

The court, in its 58-page verdict, set aside BCI’s order, saying the disputed caste certificate had not enabled her to secure admission to the LLB course or obtain her law degree.