Mere Presence Of Fraudulent Document Not Enough For Removal U/S 26(1) Advocates Act; Fraud Must Materially Impact Enrolment: Delhi High Court
The Court set aside BCI order removing advocate from State Roll, found no nexus between forged OBC certificate and enrolment, but censured her for furnishing it.
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere presence of a fraudulent document in an enrolment record cannot, by itself, be treated as obtaining enrolment by fraud, unless the fraud is shown to have played a material role in securing entry on the State Roll. The Court observed that the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 carries a drastic and final consequence, and its statutory conditions must therefore be strictly and fully satisfied.
Setting aside the Bar Council of India’s order of May 07, 2026, the Court held that the necessary nexus between the fabricated caste certificate and the petitioner’s enrolment was absent. She could have been enrolled even without the certificate, by virtue of the Bar Council of Delhi’s Resolution dated March 15, 2019 permitting consideration of candidates with less than 45% graduation marks. While upholding the finding that she furnished the certificate, the Court censured and reprimanded her.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “…where the allegation is of obtaining enrolment – by fraud – the enquiry must not end only upon finding that a forged or fabricated document was furnished during the enrolment process. The further question which necessarily arises from the language of the provision itself, is whether the alleged fraud was connected with, and had a bearing upon, the person obtaining entry on the State Roll; and in other words, whether the person would not have obtained such entry but for the fraudulent act. Thus, the mere presence of a fraudulent document in the enrolment record cannot by itself be equated with obtaining enrolment by fraud, unless the fraud is shown to have played a material role in securing such enrolment”.
Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta and T. Singhdev appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner graduated in 2012 with 44.5% marks and obtained her LL.B. in 2019. On December 17, 2019, she applied for enrolment with the BCD, ticking the OBC category. The record held an OBC certificate dated October 11, 2011, purportedly issued by a Tehsildar of “Tehsil Vasundhara”, Ghaziabad. She was enrolled on December 23, 2019, and the record was digitised in August 2021.
Complaints were received on March 19, 2026, while counting in the BCD elections was under way. The Tehsildar, Ghaziabad, reported that the certificate was not issued by him and that no such Tehsil or Tehsildar existed. The Law College confirmed that she was admitted under the General category without any caste certificate. On April 2, 2026, the BCD’s Enrolment Committee, without granting her requested adjournment, suspended her and recommended removal. After hearings on April 13, April 20, and April 22, 2026, the BCI ordered removal on May 7, 2026. Her election candidature was cancelled on May 12, 2026.
The Court first upheld the finding that she had furnished the certificate. The enrolment form required OBC candidates to attach one, the office report recorded that a UP OBC certificate was enclosed, and the signatures matched.
It found no natural justice violation before the BCI, though it noted the BCD could have granted a short adjournment. It then held that Section 26(1) requires a reasonable connection between the wrongful act and the enrolment obtained, testing the case by asking whether she would have been enrolled but for the certificate. The answer, in view of the 2019 Resolution, which the BCD acted upon in her own case, was yes. No fee concession or other benefit had been obtained.
“…the mere furnishing of the disputed Caste Certificate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be treated as sufficient to attract the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act. The BCI was required to be satisfied not merely that the petitioner had furnished any fabricated document, but that she had got her name entered on the roll of advocates by fraud or by misrepresentation as to an essential fact. On the facts of the present case, that necessary nexus between the alleged fraud and the petitioner‟s enrolment is absent. Since the petitioner could have obtained enrolment even in the absence of the disputed Certificate, it cannot be said that she secured entry on the State Roll by fraud or by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, within the meaning of the said provision, specifically in view of the BCD Resolution dated 15.03.2019, as discussed above. The condition precedent for exercise of the power of removal under the proviso to Section 26(1) is, consequently, not satisfied”, the Bench noted.
The Court set aside the removal order, directed restoration of her name on the BCD rolls forthwith, and disposed of the petition with a censure and reprimand.
Cause Title: Dipinder Kaur v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8936)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha, Senior Advocates, Amitabh Narendra, Advocates.
Respondents: Jayant Mehta and T. Singhdev, Senior Advocates, Tanishq Srivastava, Gaurav Sarin, Senior Advocate, Preet Pal Singh, Abhijit Chakravaty, Advocates.