CBI finds 's B.Com degree fake; Supreme Court gives 30 days to challenge removal
The has disposed of an appeal by advocate , whose B.Com degree from was found fake and forged by the . The Court gave him 30 days to challenge his of the .
A Degree Under Scrutiny
The controversy began when a complaint was lodged against , an advocate practising since 2001 with a licence from the . By an order dated , the Bar Council suspended his right to practise for two years. Dilawari appealed to the (BCI), which on directed the Bar Council to verify the genuineness of his educational qualifications and keep his licence suspended pending inquiry.
Doubts about Dilawari's B.Com degree—allegedly obtained in 1991 from , Bodh Gaya—prompted the Supreme Court to act. On , the Court directed the (CBI) to investigate whether the degree was genuine or forged. The CBI submitted a status report in a sealed cover, which was opened in Court.
CBI's Finding
The CBI report concluded that
"
, commission of
of
etc., have been made out against the
and other unknown persons."
This finding was recorded in the Supreme Court's order of
. The Court also took note of a communication from the Controller of Examinations of
stating that the mark sheet and B.Com degree standing in Dilawari's name were
"forged and not issued from the University."
The Bar Council's Action
Meanwhile, pursuant to the BCI Disciplinary Committee's direction, the conducted an inquiry and submitted an Inquiry Report on . On , the BCI Disciplinary Committee directed the removal of Dilawari's name from the roll of the Bar Council and ordered him to surrender his licence. This was formalised in a notification dated .
Appellant's Challenge
Appearing in person before the Supreme Court, Dilawari argued that the BCI Disciplinary Committee had "" in ordering a fresh inquiry and subsequently directing his . He contended that such actions were clearly beyond the Committee's powers.
Supreme Court's Direction
The Supreme Court, however, did not examine the merits of this challenge. The bench—comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar—observed:
"
, we are of the view that
may assail the legality and validity of the notification dated 05.08.2025 in an appropriate proceeding before the
."
The Court added that if such proceedings are filed within 30 days from
, the
shall not bar consideration of the challenge. All contentions of the appellant were kept open.
Key Observations
The Court recorded the CBI's finding verbatim, noting that it established
"
, commission of
of
etc."
against Dilawari and unknown persons. The order also noted the University's assertion that the degree documents were forged.
Court's Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeal and all pending applications, granting Dilawari the liberty to challenge the removal notification before the within 30 days. The implications are significant: the Court has left the substantive dispute—whether the degree is genuine and whether the BCI's action was within its jurisdiction—to be adjudicated in fresh proceedings. This allows Dilawari a final opportunity to contest the findings that could end his legal career, while the CBI's involvement underscores the seriousness of the allegations.