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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
AFSAL HANEEF – Appellant
Versus
THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM, SHRI.THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
For the Respondents: ADV. RAJIT, STANDING COUNSEL, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGMENT

Petitioner’s enrolment as an Advocate has been suspended since one of the certificates submitted by him along with his application for enrolment was found to be forged. Challenging the order of suspension of enrolment, petitioner has preferred Exhibit-P1 revision petition before the respondent. The limited prayer now sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to dispose of the said revision petition in a time-bound manner.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction.

3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider the revision petition preferred by the petitioner, produced as Exhibit-P1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if the petitioner seeks unnecessarily adjournments, the timeline shall not be binding on the respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

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