$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1864/2026 and CM APPL. 9112/2026 DIPTY SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Zuber Ali, Mr.

Shubh Anand, Mr. Abhishek Gandhi, Advocates.

versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026 CM APPL. 9113/2026 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1864/2026 and CM APPL. 9112/2026

1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“A. ISSUE a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1/Bar Council of India, whereby the Petitioner’s licence to practice law has been suspended and she has been prohibited from practicing before any court, tribunal, or forum; AND/OR B. ISSUE a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to forthwith restore and reinstate the Petitioner’s enrolment and licence to practice as an Advocate, with all consequential rights, privileges, and professional entitlements; AND/OR C. ISSUE appropriate directions to the Respondents to supply forthwith all documents, complaint dated 06.03.2020, minutes of proceedings, reports, and material relied upon or referred to while passing the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2021; AND/OR D. PASS any such orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner claims to be a practicing advocate, who was enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi („BCD’) on 05.08.2013. She cleared the All India Bar Examination in the year 2014 and started practicing thereafter. There seems to be a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 is her husband and on account of matrimonial disputes between them, certain complaints were made by respondent no. 3 to the BCD and eventually, the matter travelled to the Bar Council of India („BCI’), which has passed the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2021 suspending the petitioner‟s license to practice. The petitioner submits that the review application was filed and reminders/representations were also made, however, the same were not considered by the respondent(s).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as of now, neither any disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 have been commenced nor any other action has been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner then contends that there cannot be an indefinite suspension of the petitioner‟s right to practice, which otherwise, she is entitled to. It appears from the record that earlier the petitioner made some representations and the latest representation was made on 21.01.2026 (Annexure A-2).

4. Although, respondent no.3 denies the submission made by the petitioner. Be that as it may. The Court is not dealing with the matrimonial dispute, which allegedly had arisen between the parties. The controversy herein relates to the suspension of the petitioner‟s license to practice.

5. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, learned counsel, who appears on advance instructions submits that BCI shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders with due expedition.

6. In view thereof, it is directed that the BCI shall decide the petitioner‟s representation within a reasonable period of time not beyond three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed today.

7. It is made clear that before taking any decision, let an opportunity of hearing be extended to the petitioner including to supply her copy of the complaint and other material etc.

8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Nc/ksr