The Delhi High Court has set aside the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) order removing an advocate from the State Roll over a fabricated OBC caste certificate, holding that the mere furnishing of the certificate was insufficient to attract the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, in the facts of the case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the necessary link between the alleged fraud and the advocate’s enrolment had not been established, as she could have been enrolled even in the absence of the disputed certificate. The Court directed that her name be restored forthwith to the rolls maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
The case arose after complaints were received during the 2026 BCD elections alleging that the advocate had used a fabricated caste certificate to secure admission to an LL.B. course and subsequently obtain enrolment. The certificate was found to be fabricated following verification by the revenue authorities concerned.
Also Read Copyright Claim Over 47 Law Books Fails Prima Facie Test; Delhi HC Declines Interim Injunction
The advocate contended that she had been admitted to the LL.B. course under the General category and had not used the certificate to secure admission. The law college confirmed that she had been admitted under the General category and had not submitted a caste certificate at the time of admission.
The Court noted that she had secured 44.5% marks in graduation and that a BCD resolution dated March 15, 2019, permitted consideration for enrolment of candidates who had secured less than 45% marks in graduation and obtained a law degree from a college or university affiliated with the BCI. In these circumstances, she could have been considered for enrolment even without the disputed certificate.
The Court held that the condition precedent for exercising the power of removal under Section 26(1) was not satisfied, as the alleged fraud had not been shown to be the basis on which she obtained entry on the State Roll. Accordingly, it set aside the BCI’s order dated May 7, 2026.
The Court, however, clarified that setting aside the removal order did not amount to approval or condonation of the advocate’s conduct. It censured and reprimanded her for furnishing the fabricated certificate despite there being no necessity to rely on it to establish her eligibility for enrolment.
