Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council’s Decision on Advocate Enrolment: Anand Kumar Sharma vs. Bar Council of India (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 01 March 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 181

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a person, whose advocate enrolment was previously cancelled due to misrepresentation, be re-enrolled as an advocate? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of *Anand Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of India*. The Court upheld the Bar Council of India’s decision to deny enrolment, emphasizing that previous misrepresentation cannot be overlooked, even if the applicant is later acquitted of related charges. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The appellant, Anand Kumar Sharma, was initially enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in July 1988. He then sought a transfer of his enrolment to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, which was approved by the Bar Council of India on May 27, 1989. However, a complaint was lodged against him, alleging that his initial enrolment in Himachal Pradesh was obtained by suppressing crucial facts. Specifically, it was alleged that he had not disclosed his employment with the Government of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in a criminal case.

As a result, the Bar Council of India cancelled his enrolment on November 6, 1995. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court when it dismissed his Special Leave Petition on August 5, 1996. Despite this, the appellant made multiple attempts to re-enroll as an advocate.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

After his initial enrolment was cancelled, the appellant applied for re-enrolment, seeking exemption from the mandatory one-year training due to his prior experience as an advocate. He approached the High Court of Rajasthan seeking a direction to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to decide his application for exemption from training. A Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the appellant was not entitled to enrolment. However, a Division Bench directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to consider the application without being influenced by the Single Judge’s observations.

The Bar Council of Rajasthan then dismissed the appellant’s application for enrolment on January 16, 2000, and this decision was confirmed by the Bar Council of India. Subsequently, another application for enrolment was rejected by the Bar Council of Rajasthan on June 29, 2003, which was also confirmed by the Bar Council of India on January 3, 2004.

The appellant made yet another attempt, which was initially rejected on the grounds that he had crossed the age of 45, in view of Rule 1-A of the Enrollment Rules of the Bar Council of Rajasthan. This rule was later struck down by the High Court of Rajasthan. Despite this, the Bar Council of Rajasthan again refused to enroll him on July 14, 2012, which was affirmed by the Bar Council of India on September 15, 2012.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers the Bar Council of India to remove the name of any person from the Roll of Advocates if their name was entered through misrepresentation. The Court noted that the appellant’s initial enrolment was cancelled under this provision due to suppression of facts.

Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 states:


“26. Power to remove names from roll.—(1) The Bar Council of India may remove from the State roll the name of any advocate—(a) if his name has been entered on the State roll by error or on account of misrepresentation or fraud; (b) if he is found to have been guilty of professional or other misconduct; (c) if he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; (d) if he is otherwise disqualified for being an advocate.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case should negate the earlier allegations of misrepresentation. He also contended that he had gained considerable experience as an advocate, which should be considered for re-enrolment.

The Bar Council of India argued that the appellant’s initial enrolment was cancelled due to misrepresentation, and his subsequent attempts for re-enrolment were an abuse of process. They contended that the acquittal did not negate the fact that he had suppressed material information at the time of his initial enrolment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

• Whether the Bar Council of India was justified in rejecting the appellant’s application for re-enrolment as an advocate, given his past conduct of misrepresentation and subsequent acquittal in a related criminal case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court referred to Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers the Bar Council of India to remove names from the roll of advocates if their names were entered through misrepresentation.

Judgment

The Court held that the initial cancellation of the appellant’s enrolment was valid and that the subsequent acquittal did not negate the fact that he had suppressed material information at the time of his initial enrolment. It emphasized that “Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation.” The Court also noted that “The first order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court.” The Court further stated that “The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount to an abuse of process.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the appellant had initially obtained his enrolment by suppressing material facts, which was a clear violation of the standards required for advocates. The Court emphasized the importance of honesty and transparency in the legal profession, and it held that the appellant’s past conduct could not be overlooked. The Court also considered that the repeated attempts made by the appellant to seek re-enrolment despite his past conduct, amounted to an abuse of process.

Key Takeaways

• An advocate’s enrolment can be cancelled if it was obtained through misrepresentation.
• Subsequent acquittal in a related criminal case does not negate the initial misrepresentation.
• Repeated attempts to seek re-enrolment after cancellation due to misrepresentation can be considered an abuse of process.
• Honesty and transparency are paramount in the legal profession.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an advocate’s enrolment, once cancelled for misrepresentation, cannot be reinstated even if the advocate is subsequently acquitted of related criminal charges. This judgment reinforces the importance of honesty and transparency in the legal profession and clarifies that the Bar Council’s power to remove names from the roll of advocates due to misrepresentation is paramount. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Bar Council of India’s decision to deny re-enrolment to the appellant. The Court emphasized that the initial misrepresentation was a critical factor that could not be overlooked, and that repeated attempts to seek re-enrolment were an abuse of process. This judgment reinforces the importance of honesty and transparency in the legal profession.