YOGENDRA PRAKASH JAUHARI Vs.

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

(Advocacy & Professional Ethics)


Submitted by :- Submitted to:-
Divas Bhagat Asst. Prof. Dinesh Babu
B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) Faculty of Law
10
th
Sem.



(Seedling School of Law & Governance)
JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY



Table of Contents


DECLARATION.................................................... 3
CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERVISOR ........... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................... 5
Facts ........................................................................ 6
Issues ....................................................................... 8
Arguments Advanced ............................................ 9
Judgment .............................................................. 11
Appeal ................................................................... 17
Arguments Advanced .......................................... 17
Judgment .............................................................. 19







DECLARATION


I declare that the project entitled YOGENDRA PRAKASH JAUHARI Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF
INDIA & ORS is the outcome of my own work conducted under the supervision of Assistant
Professor Manish Yadav at Seedling School of Law & Governance (Jaipur National
University),Jaipur (Rajasthan)
I further declare that to the best of my Knowledge the project does not contain any part of any
work which has not given a proper citation.


DIVAS BHAGAT














CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that the research work entitled YOGENDRA PRAKASH JAUHARI Vs. BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS is the work done by Divas Bhagat under my guidance and
supervision for the Partial fulfillment of the requirement of LL.B. degree of Seedling School of
Law & Governance.
To the best of my Knowledge and belief that the project : (i) embodies the work of the candidate
himself; (ii) has been duly completed; and (iii) is up to the standard both in respect of contents
and language for being referred to the examiner.



Dr. Dinesh Babu
Assistant Professor of Law





ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express profound gratitude to Dr, Dinesh Babu, for his invaluable support,
encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions throughout this research work. His moral
support and continuous guidance enabled me to complete my work successfully. His intellectual
thrust and blessings motivated me to work rigorously on this study. In fact this study could not
have seen the light of the day if his contribution had not been available. It would be no
exaggeration to say that it is his unflinching faith and unquestioning support that has provided
the sustenance necessary to see it through to its present shape.
I am grateful to our Honble Director Professor V.S. Mani , Jaipur National
University,Jaipur for his evincing keen interest in the LL.B course and continuous
encouragement given during our period of study.
I express my sincere thanks to my respected teachers Associate Professor Mr Manish
Yadav, Mr. Sugato (Assistant Professor) for taking out their precious time and advising me on
various aspects of the study.
Among those who have sustained me over the years with their loyalty and friendship, I
would particularly mention my friends, Ankit Mathur, Anchit Verma, Chetan Deep Singh have
always taken a special interest in my work and unconditional support at each turn of the life.
I must also thank and express my heartfelt gratitude to the library staff of Jaipur National
University, Jaipur, for helping me out in carrying out the research necessary for the dissertation.
I express my deep sincere gratitude towards my parents for their blessing, patience, and moral
support in the successful completion of LL.B course.
I express my gratitude to my all teachers and friends who has supported and encouraged me
during my study at Jaipur national university, Jaipur.
Divas Bhagat

Facts

In 1992 the Petitioner was appointed as a steno-typist in the court of the Sessions Judge at
Gurgaon, Haryana. In 1997 the Petitioner was attached to the court of the Judicial Magistrate 1
st

Class (JMIC), Nuh. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he suffered harassment at the hands of
the JMIC and requested for a transfer on 17
th
September 1997. However certain orders adverse to
the Petitioner were passed by the JMIC which according to the Petitioner were set aside by the
Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. It is stated that an FIR No. 3 dated 2
nd
April 1991 under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) was registered against the Petitioner on false pretexts. He was
granted bail on 7
th
April 1999. It is not denied that ultimately the Petitioner was convicted in the
said case and his services were terminated. However his termination order was made conditional
upon the outcome of the appeal filed by the Petitioner in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
The High Court, while admitting his appeal, suspended the sentences awarded to the Petitioner.
3. It is stated that while being posted in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, at Ferozpur
Jhirka, during the session 1992-95 the Petitioner sought permission of the competent authority
and applied for a three-year regular degree course in law from D.S. College, Aligarh. He claims
that the classes for the course at the said college used to be held in the evening/late evening
hours. On 13
th
May 2005 the Petitioner filed an application for enrolment before the BCPH.
However the Petitioner claims to have got hints from certain sectors that his application for
enrolment would be turned down on account of the pressure brought on the BCPH by the JMIC.
Accordingly, the Petitioner applied to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) on 30
th
June 2005. The
BCD enrolled the Petitioner as an Advocate with effect from 7
th
July 2005 and he was allotted
Enrolment No.D-519/05. After his enrolment with the BCD, the Petitioner wrote to the BCPH
seeking withdrawal of his application.
4. On 16
th
September 2005 the Bar Association of Nuh through Shri Zakir Hussain, Advocate
lodged a complaint against the Petitioner with the BCD in which it was stated that pursuant to his
arrest in the PCA case, the Petitioner remained in judicial custody for one month and upon
completion of trial he was convicted. The Petitioner had obtained law degree during the period of
his suspension from service. The BCPH had refused to enroll him as he was convicted in the
aforementioned case. Moreover the Petitioner had concealed before the BCD that he had applied
to the BCPH earlier.

On 27
th
November 2005 the BCPH by a resolution (which has been challenged in this petition)
proposed to the BCI that the Petitioners enrolment should be refused. On this basis by a
resolution dated 11
th
/12
th
February 2006, the BCI passed a resolution accepting the
recommendation of the BCPH. Two more complaints dated 13
th
and 14
th
February 2008 were
filed against the Petitioner with the BCPH. Since these complaints could not be decided within
the stipulated period, they were transferred to the BCI. On 19
th
July 2008 the Disciplinary
Committee of the BCI proposed the removal of the Petitioners name from the rolls of the BCD.
Thereafter by an order dated 12
th
October 2008 passed in Removal Proceedings No. 4/2008, the
BCI directed removal of the Petitioners name from rolls of the BCI. The petitioners Review
Petition was dismissed on 24
th
December 2008. All of the aforementioned resolutions and
orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.












Issues

1. Whether Right to Enrollment is only a Stautory Right or a Fundamental Right?

2. Whether the Petitioner could make an application to the BCD for enrolment as
Advocate even while a similar application made to the BCPH was pending and
further that still he was mandatorily required to disclose this fact in his application filed
with the BCD.














Arguments Advanced

1. Pursuant to the notice issued in the petition, replies have been filed by both the Chairman
of the Committee of the BCI, Respondent No.5 and the BCI. It is pointed out by the BCI
that right to enrolment is only a statutory right and is not a fundamental right. It is not
automatically granted upon a person merely fulfilling the eligibility conditions. This is
made clear in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (AA). It is emphasized that
attendance of lectures and tutorials in the law degree course is an essential part of the
training of a law student as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Sharma
v. Bar Council of H.P. (2001) 2 SCC 365. It is submitted that a comprehensive reading
of the Sections 24 and 49 of the Act read with Rules 1(i)(c) and Rule 4 in part 4 of the
Bar Council of India Rules (BCI Rules) showed that the BCI as the apex professional
body is concerned with the standards of the legal profession. It prescribes norms for those
seeking entrance to the profession. It is submitted that the college in which the Petitioner
claims to have been admitted is in Aligarh which is at least 170 km from the place of his
posting at Firozpur Jhirka. Since the travel time between the place of work and the
college would take four hours one way and since the Petitioner was a full time employee
who was not given leave to attend classes, it is obvious that the LL.B degree obtained by
the Petitioner was without attending regular classes. Therefore the Petitioner was not
entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate.
More seriously it is pointed out that in the enrolment form filed with the BCD the Petitioner did
not disclose the details of his conviction in a criminal case. Further in his enrolment application
form submitted to the BCD, the Petitioner did not disclose that he had already applied for
enrolment with the BCPH and that his application there was pending. He in fact made a
misdeclaration in this regard in Column 20 of the enrolment form. It is submitted that this was
misdeclaration of an essential particular within the meaning of the proviso to Section 26 AA and
therefore for the above reasons the Petitioners name was rightly removed from the BCD.



2. In his rejoinder the petitioner has placed a copy of the attendance certificate issued by the
D.S. College at Aligarh in which it is mentioned that the Petitioner had completed the
requisite attendance as per the rule of the University i.e. 75% as per college record. It is
then pointed out that there were other people who were employees of the judicial
department of the Government of Haryana posted in Gurgaon and during their posting
they completed their three years LL.B in like manner. It is submitted that while no
action was taken against those persons, the Petitioner was being singled out for
discriminatory treatment.

Mr.Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that there is no provision in the
AA which prevents a person from applying for enrolment simultaneously to two different State
Bar Councils. Reference is made to Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter II Part V of the BCI Rules.
Secondly, it is submitted that non-furnishing of information to the BCD about having filed an
application for enrolment before the BCPH was not a material concealment warranting the recall
of his enrolment. It is submitted that if at all a person is enrolled in two State Bar Councils, the
Rules require that he has to surrender the enrolment certificate of one of them. The petitioner had
after being enrolled with the BCD, withdrawn his application before the BCPH. There was
therefore no concealment of any material facts warranting the resolution of the BCPH and the
impugned decision of the BCI. Without prejudice to these contentions it is submitted that the
punishment of removal from the rolls was disproportionate and harsh. It is further urged that the
Petitioners written brief of arguments was not considered when his case was finalized by the
BCI at the meeting held on 12
th
October 2008. The notings in the file show that the decision to
remove the Petitioner from the rolls was taken on 12
th
September 2008 itself.
3. On behalf of the BCI, Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned counsel submits that there was no
question of the Petitioner having 75% attendance and therefore such a law degree
obtained by the Petitioner could not be acted upon. It is further submitted that the
Petitioner far from giving a satisfactory explanation for suppressing the material facts
before the BCD both as regards his conviction in a criminal case as well as an application
made before the BCPH which was pending as on that date, made wild allegations against
the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI, i.e. Respondent No.5 herein.
Judgment

1. This Court has considered the above submissions. The scheme of the AA indicates that
there is a central body known as the BCI and there are different State Bar Councils. As
far as Delhi is concerned, it initially was a Union Territory and Section 3(i)(f) of the AA
provided that for the Union Territory of Delhi there would be separate Bar Council which
would for all purposes be a state Bar Council. One of the functions of the State Bar
Council under Section 6(1)(a) is to admit persons as Advocates on its rolls. The other
functions include entertaining and determining cases of misconduct against Advocates
and to do all other things necessary for the discharge of its functions. As far as the BCI is
concerned among its principal functions is to lay down standards of professional conduct
for the Advocates and to lay down the procedures for its Disciplinary Committee and the
Disciplinary Committee of each of the State Bar Councils. The composition of the
Disciplinary Committee is set out under Section 9 of the AA. Section 17 requires the
State Bar Council to maintain a roll of Advocates. Under Section 18 a person whose
name is entered as an Advocate in the roll of any State Bar Council can make an
application to the BCI for transfer of his name

from the roll of that Bar Council to the roll of any other Bar Council and on receipt of such
application, the BCI shall direct that the name of such person shall be removed from the first
mentioned State Bar Council and enrolled to the other Bar Council and the State Bar Council
shall comply with this direction. Under the proviso to Section 18, the BCI has the power to reject
any application if it has not been made bonafide, or by a person against whom any disciplinary
proceedings is pending, after complying with the principles of natural justice. Under Section 24
of the AA, for being admitted to as an Advocate on a State roll, a person has to be a citizen of
India, has to have completed 21 years of age, has to have obtained a degree in law and should
fulfill other conditions as may be prescribed in the rules made by the State Bar Council.


Section 24A stipulates that no person shall be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll if he is
convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude of if he is convicted of an offence under the
provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 provided that the disqualification shall
cease t have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release.
2. Sections 26 and 27 of the AA which are material for the purposes of the present case read
as under:

26. Disposal of application for admission as an Advocate.__

(1) A State Bar Council shall refer every application for admission as an advocate to
its enrolment committee, and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3),
[and to any direction that may be given in writing by the State Bar Council in this
behalf] such committee shall dispose of the application in the prescribed manner:

[Provided that the Bar Council of India may, if satisfied, either on a reference made to
it in this behalf or otherwise, that any person has got his name entered on the roll of
advocates by misrepresentation as to an essential fact or by fraud or undue influence,
remove the name of such person from the roll of advocates after giving him an
opportunity of being heard.]

(2) Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council proposes to refuse any
such application, it shall refer the application for opinion to the Bar Council of India
and every such reference shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds in
support of the refusal of the application.

(3) The enrolment committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of any application
referred to the Bar Council of India under sub-section (2) in conformity with the
opinion of the Bar Council of India.

(4)Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council has refused any application
for admission as an advocate on its roll, the State Bar Council shall as soon as may
be, send intimation to all other State Bar Councils about such refusal stating the
name, address and qualification of the person whose application was refused and the
grounds for the refusal.

27. Application once refused not to be entertained by

another Bar Council except in certain circumstances- Where a State Bar Council
has refused the application of any person for admission as an advocate on its roll, no
other State Bar Council shall entertain an application for admission of such person as
an advocate on its roll, except with the previous consent in writing of the State Bar
Council which refused the application and of the Bar Council of India.
3. What calls for determination in the first place is whether the Petitioner could
make an application to the BCD for enrolment as Advocate even while a similar
application made to the BCPH was pending and further that still he was mandatorily
required to disclose this fact in his application filed with the BCD. As far as the factual
matrix is concerned, there is no denial that in the application filed before the BCD in
Column 20 the Petitioner wrote N.A. (not applicable) against the column seeking
information whether he had made a previous application for enrolment as an Advocate.
He also wrote No in the same column. The date of application with the BCD was 5
th

July 2005. On that day the Petitioners application with the BCPH was pending
consideration. Clearly, therefore, the Petitioner consciously sought to mislead the BCD
by holding out that had in fact not made any application previously to a State Bar
Council.


4. This Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the above was at best a concealment and not a misdeclaration as to an essential fact
as contained in provision to Section 26. If the Petitioner had not written anything at all in
the said column it could still be argued that it was perhaps only a concealment and not a
misdeclaration. However, the Petitioner has deliberately written N.A. and No and
therefore there can be no doubt that it is a misdeclaration. Further giving the context of
Section 27 where it is important for a State Bar Council to know of the status of the
application made by the same person before any other State Bar Council, this fact is no
doubt an essential fact within the meaning of the proviso to Section 26 of the AA. Even
where such earlier application before another State Bar Council is pending, there can be
developments that might take place between the making of the subsequent application
and its being taken up for consideration and such development may have a material
bearing on the decision of the State Bar Council to which the subsequent application is
made. Further, the Petitioner furnished to the BCD an affidavit dated 14
th
June 2005
undertaking to disclose all the information asked in the application form. Therein the
Petitioner stated that any omission to disclose or any misrepresentation shall render my
application invalid and liable to be cancelled. For all of the above reasons, this Court
fully concurs with the findings of the BCI that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of an
essential fact in the application made by him to the BCD.
5. There is merit in the contention of the counsel for the BCI that the LL.B degree obtained
by the Petitioner was not accepted since the BCIs Rules concerning attendance were
not fulfilled. Under Rule 1(i)(c) Section B, Part IV of the BCI Rules, an applicant
has to fulfill the condition of regular attendance. Rule 3 of Section B, Part IV of the
BCI Rules reads as under:

3. The students shall be required to put in a minimum attendance of 66% of
the lectures on each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and
practical training course:

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and
communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law
and the Principal of Law Colleges may condone attendance short of those
required by the Rule, if the student has attendance 66% of the lectures in
aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be.



6. The letter dated 25
th
August 2005 from the Office of the District & Sessions Judge,
Gurgaon showed that during 1992 to 1995 the Petitioner did not avail of any study leave.
The service record of the Petitioner showed that he availed of 12 days leave
between 1992 and 1995. Although before the BCI shows the Petitioner did not
place any document of the law college showing that it was working during summer
vacations, the Petitioner has sought to produce along with the present petition an
attendance certificate issued by the Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh. The certificate raises
more questions than it answers because it asserts that the Petitioner completed the
requisite attendance as per the rules of the University i.e. 75% as per the college record. It
is indeed surprising that while his service record shows that he availed of only 12 days
leave altogether, the above certificate asserts that he had 75% attendance. It is plain,
therefore, that the Petitioner was unable to satisfy the BCI that he in fact, attended the
minimum number of classes at a college in Aligarh in UP 170 km away while working in
the District & Sessions Court at Ferozpur Jhirka, Haryana. The decision of the BCI to
strictly enforce the above rules of attendance is consistent with the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of I ndia 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 91;
Bar Council of I ndia v. Aparna Basu Mallick (1994) 2 SCC 102 and by this Court in S.
N. Singh v. Union of I ndia 2003 (106) DLT 329. If certain others were granted
enrolment wrongly despite not fulfilling the attendance requirement, it is for the
concerned State Bar Council to take corrective action. It by no means can give a right to
the Petitioner to seek parity with such persons.
7. The third difficulty in the way of the Petitioner is his having been convicted in a criminal
case involving moral turpitude. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner was convicted
by the order dated 25
th
February 2005 of the Special Judge, Chandigarh under Section 7
of the PC Act and sentenced to imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of two months. A similar sentence has
been passed upon his conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court when admitting the appeal on 15
th
March 2005 only
granted him bail but did not suspend the conviction itself. Under Section 24A no person
shall be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll, if convicted of an offence involving
moral turpitude. Two years have not elapsed since his release. That event is yet to occur.
Therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to be enrolled even on this ground.
8. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no ground having been made out for
interference with the decision of the BCI. The petition is accordingly dismissed with
costs.
9. Before concluding this, the Court would like to emphasise that it is important for the
State Bar Councils to deal with applications made for enrolment of a person as an
Advocate with care and attention. Possessing a law degree from a recognized institution
although mandatory will by itself not suffice. The State Bar Council or the BCI as the
case may be will, apart from verifying with the concerned University the authenticity of
the certificate, also call for a copy of the record of the applicants attendance. Further,
each State Bar Council should preferably maintain a website on which details of all
pending applications for enrolment and their current status should be posted. This will
enable any other State Bar Council to immediately verify if the applicant seeking
enrolment has in fact applied to any other State Bar Council. Secondly, in the application
for enrolment, certain columns must be made mandatory for being filled up by applicants
including Column 20. An applicant must be made to disclose whether the application
made to any other State Bar Council is pending and if disposed of, with what result.
These are suggestions to the BCI and the State Bar Council who may suitably incorporate
the changes by amending the forms and the applicable rules.
10. A certified copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, BCD, the Secretary BCPH and the
Secretary of the BCI within a period of seven days.







Appeal

1. These Intra-Court appeals impugn the judgments, both dated 15.02.2010 of the learned
Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.(C) No.7406/2009 and W.P.(C)
No.12356/2009 preferred by the appellant. Notice of the appeals was issued and the
counsels have been heard.
Arguments Advanced

1. The appellant before us has contended that he has been wrongly held guilty, while
applying to the BCD of having practiced fraud and concealed the earlier application to
the BCPH with mala fide intent. It is argued that if the appellant had intended any
concealment, it would have been of the factum of his conviction but which was fully
disclosed. As far as the information furnished against column No.20 (supra) of the
application form is concerned, it is argued that the appellant was under the bona fide
impression that the same did not apply to him since no decision had been taken on his
application to the BCPH. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge had
erroneously held the distance between the place of posting of the appellant and the law
College as 170 Kms. when infact it was around 80 Kms. away and which he was
traversing every day in a Jeep. It is further argued that the law College had certified that
the appellant had attended 75% of the classes and without the said certificate and the
LL.B Degree being set aside, the BCI could not disbelieve the same. Qua LPA
No.415/2010, it is additionally argued that the issues therein were entirely different and
have wrongly been not dealt with.
2. The senior counsel for the BCI, BCD and BCPH has per contra contended that the BCI is
not bound to grant enrolment to all possessing a LL.B Degree and is entitled to satisfy
itself of the fulfillment of the conditions / criteria laid down by it. He has invited out
attention to BCI Vs. Aparna Basu Mallick (1994) 2 SCC 102 and to Satish Kumar
Sharma Vs. Bar Council of H.P. (2001) 2 SCC 365. While the latter of the said
judgments merely emphases the need for fulfillment of the rules of enrolment, in the
former the decision of the BCI to deny enrolment for the reason of the applicant having
not pursued regular course of study at any college notwithstanding Degree was upheld by
the Supreme Court.
3. As far as the controversy qua distance is concerned, it is the admission of the appellant
also that the law college was at a distance of 70/90 Kms. from the place of his posting.
Even if we were to go by the said distance, we find ourselves unable to interfere with the
finding of fact of a professional body like the BCI to the effect that the appellant could
not have attended the classes regularly so as to be in a position to satisfy the said
condition for enrolment. The BCI in this regard has noted:
(i) that inspite of being required to produce documents to satisfy having attended the
requisite classes, no such documents were produced; save for himself stating that
the classes commenced during late evening hours, no details of the timings of the
classes were furnished;

(ii) that the records of the office of the District and Session Judge, Gurgaon did not
show the appellant having obtained Study leave / earned leave to attend the
regular classes;
(iii) that the appellant had obtained permission from the District & Session Judge,
Gurgaon for admission as a private candidate only but in contravention thereof
joined as a regular candidate and which also clearly amounted to cheating / fraud
with the employer;
(iv) though the appellant claimed to have attended the law classes during summer
vacation but could not produce any document from the law college in support
thereof;
(v) that the appellant has failed to prove as to how he attended regular classes at a
long distance;
(vi) thus the appellants attendance in law classes appeared to be by proxy and not by
physical presence;
(vii) that for enrolment with the BCI, an applicant is required to show that he had
actually and physically attended the required percentage of lectures at law college
during the law course.


Judgment

1. The appellant before us also has not been able to satisfy the possibility if at all of his
having attended the requisite law classes. Moreover, it was the application of the
appellant for enrolment with BCPH which was rejected on the ground of the appellant
having not attended and or could not have attended the requisite number of classes. That
decision of the BCI i.e. of 08.03.2006 (supra) attained finality and is not subject matter of
either of the writ petitions from which these appeals have arisen. Once BCI qua the
application for enrolment made to BCPH had held that the appellant did not possess the
requisite qualifications, the revocation of the enrolment with BCD on the basis of the
same LL.B degree was axiomatic. We reiterate that the appellant allowed the order dated
08.03.2006 (supra) of BCI to attain finality. He thus can in any case be not heard to
challenge the same in these appeals arising from writ petitions challenge wherein was not
to the order dated 08.03.2006 of BCI.

2. We are unable to find any error requiring interference in exercise of powers of judicial
review in the order dated 12.10.2008 (supra) of the BCI finding the appellant to have
fraudulently and with a malafide intent withheld essential facts while applying for
enrolment with BCD.

3. We are of the opinion that in the entirety of the facts aforesaid, no case for interference
with the jurisdiction exercised by the professional bodies of refusing enrolment to the
appellant is made out. The Supreme Court recently in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar Delhi
High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 has expressed grave concern and dismay on the decline of
ethical and professional standards among lawyers and erosion of the professional values
among lawyers at all levels and the immediate need for arresting and reversing the said
trend. It was held that unless the same is done, it will have deleterious consequences for
the administration of justice in the country. It was further held that no judicial system in a
democratic society can work satisfactorily unless it is supported by a Bar that enjoys the
unqualified trust and confidence of the people, that shares the aspirations, hopes and the
ideals of the people. The Supreme Court observed that the Bar Council of India and the
Bar Councils of different States cannot escape their responsibility in this regard.

4. The conduct of the appellant of, while applying to BCD, wrongly stating that he had not
made any earlier application to any other Bar Council is not found to be an isolated
incident. Rather the consistent conduct of the appellant of i) seeking permission for doing
LL.B course as a private student but joining the same as a regular student; ii) to not
disclosing to the Session Division, Gurgaon where the appellant was employed, thereafter
also of having joined the LL.B course as a regular student; iii) conviction for corruption;
iv) first applying to BCPH and thereafter to BCD for enrolment; v) having secured LL.B
degree by attending classes by proxy and which finding as aforesaid has attained finality;
vi) not informing BCD of rejection of his application for enrolment with BCPH by the
BCI; and vii) applying again for enrolment with BCPH after his enrolment with BCD had
been revoked, speaks volume of the nature and character of the appellant. We are thus
unable to accept the explanation offered by the appellant of the mis-declaration in filling
up the application for enrolment with BCD being bonafide. The conduct aforesaid rather
shows the appellant to be a believer of, achieving his goals by hook or by crook. It cannot
also be lost sight of that the appellant was / is not a fresher to the field of law. He before
applying for enrolment for, nearly 13 years was working in the Courts and can be held to
be aware of all his action. We have wondered whether such a person even otherwise is
entitled to discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
answer obviously is no.
5. Insofar as LPA No.415/2010 is concerned, once it is held that the appellant had not
attended the requisite law classes, the question of his enrolment in BCI does not arise.
6. We therefore do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss thesame. We refrain
ourselves from imposing any costs.