SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 223

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
ANAND KUMAR SHARMA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO .294 OF 2007
WITH
ANAND KUMAR SHARMA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No._2426-2427 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)…6383-6384/2019 CC Nos. 10531 - 10532 of 2013]
Decided on : 01-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. Amritesh Raj, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Singh,Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Shrivastava, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of enrolment as Advocate on the ground of suppression of material facts is justified.

Headnote:Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 26 – Cancellation of enrolment as Advocate – Suppression that was alleged against Appellant at the time of seeking enrolment in Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh pertains to his being in Government service in State of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in criminal case – Subsequent acquittal cannot come to rescue of Appellant – First order that was passed by Bar Council cancelling his enrolment Advocate was confirmed by Apex Court – Repeated attempts made by Appellant later amount to abuse of process – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 7 and 8)

       Facts of Case:

       Appellant was enrolled as Advocate in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988. He applied for transfer of his enrolment to the State of Rajasthan which was permitted by Bar Council of India on 27th May, 1989. Bar Council of Rajasthan received complaint that Appellant’s enrolment in State of Himachal Pradesh was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant material. Enrolment of Appellant was cancelled on 6th November, 1995 by Bar Council of India. Said order was affirmed by this Court as Special Leave Petition filed by Appellant was dismissed on 5th August, 1996.

       Findings of Court:

       Section 26 of Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on Bar Council of India to remove

       name of a person who entered on Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation. It is in exercise of this power that enrollment of Appellant was cancelled.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)..CC Nos. 10531 - 10532 of 2013.

1. The Appellant was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988. He applied for transfer of his enrolment to the State of Rajasthan which was permitted by the Bar Council of India on 27th May, 1989. The Bar Council of Rajasthan received a complaint that the Appellant's enrolment in the State of Himachal Pradesh was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant material. The enrolment of the Appellant was cancelled on 6th November, 1995 by the Bar Council of India. The said order was affirmed by this Court as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on 5th August, 1996.

2. Thereafter, the Appellant applied for enrolment as an advocate seeking exemption from training of one year in view of his experience as an advocate earlier. He approached the High Court of Rajasthan seeking a direction to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to decide his application for exemption from training. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by holding that the Appellant was not entitled for enrolment. In the Appeal filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Division Bench directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to consider the application filed by the Appellant without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

3. The Bar Council of Rajasthan dismissed the application of the Appellant for enrolment on 16th January, 2000 and referred the matter for confirmation of the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India confirmed the order passed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 16th January, 2000.

4. The Appellant filed yet another application for enrolment as an advocate before the Bar Council of Rajasthan which was rejected on 29th June, 2003. The Bar Council of India confirmed the order of 29th June, 2003 by its resolution dated 3rd January, 2004.

5. The Appellant made another attempt for enrolment by filing an application before the Bar Council of Rajasthan. Initially, the said application was rejected on the ground that the Appellant cannot be admitted as an advocate since he has crossed the age of 45 years in view of Rule 1-A of the Enrollment Rules, Bar Council of Rajasthan framed under Section 28 (1) (d) read with Section 24 (1) (e) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The said Rule was struck down by the High Court of Rajasthan by judgment dated 19th August, 2008. Taking into account the earlier order dated 16th January, 2000 by which the application for enrolment filed by Appellant was rejected, the Bar Council of Rajasthan refused to enroll the Appellant as an advocate by the order dated 14th July, 2012. The order dated 14th July, 2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan was affirmed by the Bar Council of India on 15th September, 2012.

6. C.A. 294 of 2007 is filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 29.06.2003 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the consequential orders dated 02.01.2004 of the Bar Council of India and the order dated 18.03.2004 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan. The legality of the orders dated 14th July, 2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan affirmed by the Bar Council of India on 15th September, 2012 is subject matter of Special Leave Petitions (Civil)... CC Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013.

7. The Appellant is a qualified medical doctor who was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In the affidavit filed in Special Leave Petitions (Civil)..CC Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013, the Appellant stated that a FIR registered against him at Police Station Dhambola on 15th April, 1988. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He further stated that he was absent from service without obtaining leave for which reason his services were terminated by the Director. The Appellant has also referred to his conviction under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Judicial Magistrate on 7th January, 1988

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top