Restored to the roll and censured in the same judgment: the fraud must be what got you enrolled

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sets aside the Bar Council of India's removal of an advocate's name, holding that the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act requires a nexus between the wrongful act and the enrolment obtained — and reprimands her for the fabricated certificate anyway.

An advocate enrolled in 2019 had, among the documents accompanying her application, a caste certificate describing her as belonging to the Other Backward Classes. The certificate was fabricated. She did not need it: she had been admitted to her LL.B. course under the General category and met the General cutoff. In May 2026 the Bar Council of India removed her name from the State Roll under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and her candidature in the ongoing Bar Council of Delhi elections was cancelled as a consequence. On 8 October 2026 Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma set the removal aside and ordered her name restored forthwith — while keeping the finding that she had furnished a fabricated document, and censuring and reprimanding her for it in the same judgment.

A certificate that was not needed

The petitioner graduated from the University of Delhi in 2012 with 44.5 per cent marks. She then pursued the LL.B. at a law college affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, and obtained the degree in 2019 with 53.1 per cent. For the academic session 2016–2017, the eligibility prescribed by that university for admission under the General category was 44.5 per cent marks, and she was admitted under the General category.

On 17 December 2019 she applied for enrolment as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. The application was accompanied by her educational certificates, marksheets and degree, and also by a caste certificate dated 11 October 2011 purportedly issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, describing her as belonging to the OBC category.

That certificate was later found to be fabricated. By order dated 7 May 2026 the Bar Council of India removed her name from the roll of advocates under the proviso to Section 26(1), recording that she had obtained enrolment by fraud or misrepresentation as to an essential fact. On 12 May 2026 the Election Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi cancelled her candidature in the elections then under way, in view of that order. She came to the High Court for certiorari against the removal, a mandamus to restore her name, and relief against the cancellation of her candidature.

Two complaints, filed while the votes were being counted

None of this would have surfaced but for an election. An election notice dated 24 December 2025 was issued for the 2026 elections to the Bar Council of Delhi, and the petitioner filed her nomination. She was among the leading women candidates: placed second among them on 18 March 2026, and third after the counting of first-preference votes was completed.

While the counting was in progress, the Bar Council of Delhi received two complaints dated 19 March 2026, from two advocates. Both concerned the caste certificate, and both alleged that she had secured her admission to the LL.B. course as well as her enrolment on the basis of a fabricated certificate, with a view to obtaining relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks.

The Bar Council did two things. On 20 March 2026 it forwarded the certificate to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad for verification of its genuineness. On 24 March, with a reminder on 28 March, it wrote to the law college for the records and documents she had submitted at the time of her admission.

Both answers came back, and they pointed in opposite directions. The Tehsildar, Ghaziabad replied on 25 March 2026 that the certificate dated 11 October 2011 had not been issued to the petitioner — and went further: there was no Tehsil named “Vasundhara” in Ghaziabad District, and no Tehsildar by the name shown on the document was employed in the concerned Tehsil. On that verification the Bar Council treated the certificate as forged.

The law college replied on 28 March 2026 that, as per its records, the petitioner had not submitted any caste certificate at the time of her admission to the LL.B. course; that she had been admitted under the General category; and that General category admissions were granted to candidates who had secured a minimum of 44.5 per cent marks in graduation — which she had. The central allegation in the complaints, that the certificate had bought her a relaxation in qualifying marks, was therefore not true. What remained was a forged document sitting in an enrolment file for no discernible purpose.

The Enrolment Committee met on 28 March 2026 and decided to issue a show-cause notice, which went out the same day with the certificate and the verification report annexed. The petitioner replied on 2 April 2026, disputing the allegations, asking for copies of the complaints and of her own enrolment form, and seeking a short adjournment because she was out of station for her brother's marriage.

What the proviso actually requires

The judgment's work is done on the words of the provision, and it begins by setting out the three statutory conditions for the exercise of the power. The person must have got his or her name entered on the State Roll; and that entry must have been obtained by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, or by fraud, or by undue influence.

The emphasis falls on the verb. The expressions “got his name entered on the roll” and the words “by misrepresentation”, “by fraud” and “by undue influence” together define the circumstances in which this drastic power can be exercised. The provision does not say that the Bar Council of India may remove a name because the advocate has, at any time before or during enrolment, furnished a false document or made an incorrect declaration. It contemplates a situation where the entry of the name on the roll “is attributable to such misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence”. There must, the Court held, be a reasonable connection between the wrongful act complained of and the obtaining of enrolment as an advocate.

Why that distinction matters is explained by the consequence. The only consequence available under the proviso, once its requirements are met, is removal of the name from the State Roll — which makes the person cease to be an advocate and deprives them of the right to practise. That is materially different from the disciplinary jurisdiction of a State Bar Council under Section 35, where a finding of professional misconduct opens a range of outcomes: reprimand, suspension from practice for a specified period, or removal. “The consequence under proviso to Section 26(1) being one of such finality, the statutory conditions for invoking the said provision must necessarily be strictly and fully satisfied”, and removal cannot follow merely from some irregularity or incorrect statement unless the statutory nexus is established.

Essential fact, and fraud

The impugned order had recited both limbs. During arguments, however, it was stated on behalf of the Bar Council of India that the order was premised on obtaining enrolment “by fraud” and not on “misrepresentation as to an essential fact”. The Court examined both anyway.

“Misrepresentation as to an essential fact” carries its own qualification: the fact misrepresented must be essential to the person's entitlement to be entered on the roll. Every incorrect statement by an applicant, or every incorrect declaration in an enrolment form, cannot by itself be a misrepresentation as to an essential fact. The fact must be one whose true disclosure “would have a bearing upon the applicant's eligibility or entitlement to enrolment”.

Where the allegation is of obtaining enrolment by fraud, the enquiry does not end on finding that a forged or fabricated document was furnished during the process. The further question arising from the language of the provision is whether the fraud was connected with, and had a bearing upon, the person obtaining entry on the roll — in other words, “whether the person would not have obtained such entry but for the fraudulent act”. The mere presence of a fraudulent document in the enrolment record cannot be equated with obtaining enrolment by fraud unless the fraud is shown to have played a material role in securing it.

The judgment then supplies the contrast that makes the test concrete. Had the applicant produced a fabricated LL.B. degree, or a forged marksheet showing the requisite marks, the position would plainly be different: the very basis on which the State Bar Council decides to enter a name on the roll would be false, and the fraudulent document would have a direct and immediate nexus with the enrolment. The same would be true of an applicant who did not otherwise satisfy an applicable eligibility condition. A caste certificate, for an applicant admitted under the General category and meeting the General cutoff, is not that document.

Set aside, restored — and censured

The order of 7 May 2026 therefore could not be sustained. The finding that the petitioner had furnished the disputed caste certificate was maintained; the conclusion that such furnishing attracted the proviso to Section 26(1) and warranted removal of her name from the State Roll was set aside. It was directed that her name be restored forthwith on the rolls of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi.

And then the paragraph that keeps the judgment from reading as a vindication. Before parting with the case, the Court considered it necessary to observe that setting aside the order “does not amount to approval or condonation of the petitioner's conduct”, irrespective of the fact that she now holds a valid certificate reflecting her status as belonging to the OBC category. The disputed certificate was found in her enrolment record and was found to be fabricated. The absence of any actual advantage to her from it “does not, however, diminish the seriousness of furnishing a fabricated document, even if it was not necessary for establishing her eligibility for enrolment”.

She was accordingly “censured and reprimanded” for having furnished the disputed certificate with her enrolment application despite having no need to rely on it. The relief granted was expressly confined to the statutory consequence under Section 26(1), and is not to be understood as any approval of her conduct. The petition was disposed of in those terms, with a direction that the judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

The practical effect is a narrow but real limit on a power the Bar Council of India has treated broadly. A fabricated document in an enrolment file is not, without more, the end of a career; it is a matter for the disciplinary route under Section 35, with its graded outcomes, rather than for the one irreversible consequence the proviso allows. What the removal power reaches is the document that did the work — the degree, the marksheet, the eligibility that was not there.