$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8008/2025 and CM APPL. 35173/2025 ANAND KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Vedant Sood, Ms. Yamini Singh, Advs. for R-2/

BCD.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. That the instant petition is for setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.04.2024 and 10.06.2024 passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner’s name has been removed from the roll of advocates on the alleged ground of a forged L.L.B. degree.

2. It is stated that the petitioner has lawfully obtained the LL.B. degree from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, and has been practicing as an advocate for more than 20 years. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2017, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court regarding verification of law degrees of practicing advocates, he submitted all requisite documents, including his degree and marksheets, to the respondents. However, according to him, in the year 2019, solely on the basis of a communication received from Bundelkhand University alleging non-availability of records, the Respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, falsely alleging that his degree was fake. It is further contended that despite the petitioner submitting detailed replies and making repeated representations, the Respondents failed to conduct a fair and proper re-verification or to supply the alleged adverse verification reports relied upon by them.

3. Thereafter, it is stated that removal proceedings were initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’) and vide impugned orders his licence to practice was first suspended and subsequently cancelled, even though his writ petition challenging the stand of Bundelkhand University was already sub judice before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

4. I have heard the petitioner in person and have perused the record.

5. The singular grievance raised in the present petition pertains to the pendency of Writ Petition (C) No. 3854 of 2024, filed by the Petitioner, which is presently sub judice before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It is contended that so long as the issue relating to the genuineness and verification of the degrees by Bundelkhand University remains pending adjudication before the said Court, respondent no.1- Bar Council of India ought to have refrained from taking any conclusive or final decision adverse to the petitioner.

6. The aforesaid argument is wholly unacceptable. The mere pendency of proceedings at the instance of the litigant before any Court does not, by itself, operate as a bar or restraint upon a statutory authority from exercising its independent powers or discharging its statutory obligations. Unless there exists a specific order of stay or an express interdiction issued by the competent Court, the authority concerned is neither divested of its jurisdiction nor precluded from proceeding in accordance with law.

7. In the present case, the respondents derive their authority under the Act, and are statutorily empowered to examine the eligibility, conduct, and continuance of advocates on the rolls. Reference to the general power of the Bar Council of India to make rules under Section 49 of the Act, which is extracted as under: -

“49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules.― [(1)] The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe—

2 [(a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to vote at an election to the State Bar Council including the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by a State Bar Council;

(ab) q