Delhi High Court Restores Advocate’s Name on BCI Rolls, Says Removal Powers Are Not Unlimited

The Delhi High Court has restored an advocate’s name to the rolls of the Bar Council of India (BCI), setting aside an order removing her over allegations that she used a forged caste certificate to secure admission to a law course and enrolment as an advocate. The court held that the BCI does not have unrestricted power to remove an advocate’s name from the roll.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in an order dated October 8, observed that merely submitting a disputed caste certificate was not sufficient to justify removal under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act. The BCI was required to establish that the advocate had obtained enrolment through fraud or misrepresentation concerning an essential fact.

The advocate, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) in 2019, approached the High Court after her name was removed while she was contesting the BCD elections in 2026. Complaints had questioned the authenticity of a caste certificate allegedly submitted during her admission to an LL.B. course and subsequent enrolment.

Following the complaints, the BCD sent the certificate to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, for verification and also sought information from the law college where the advocate had studied.

According to the material placed before the court, the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad, confirmed that the caste certificate had not been issued to the advocate. However, the law college informed the BCD that its records showed she had taken admission under the general category and had not submitted a caste certificate at the time of admission.

The High Court also criticised the advocate for furnishing an allegedly fabricated document, observing that the absence of any actual advantage from the certificate did not reduce the seriousness of the conduct.

However, the court distinguished the alleged act of submitting a fabricated document from the specific legal requirement for removing an advocate’s name from the roll. It held that the BCI had to be satisfied that fraud or misrepresentation concerning an essential fact had resulted in enrolment.

The ruling underscores that disciplinary and enrolment-related powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law, even when allegations concerning the authenticity of documents are serious.