The submission of a disputed or fabricated caste certificate does not, by itself, justify removing an advocate from the State roll. The Delhi High Court has ruled that authorities must establish that the alleged fraud or misrepresentation was instrumental in securing the lawyer’s enrolment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the ruling while setting aside the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) decision to remove advocate Dipinder Kaur from the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
The Court clarified that Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act does not confer an unrestricted power to strike off an advocate’s name simply because an incorrect statement was made or a questionable document was submitted during the enrolment process.
In Dipinder Kaur v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors., the Court emphasised that the crucial question was not merely whether a disputed document had been furnished, but whether the advocate had obtained entry on the State roll through fraud or misrepresentation concerning an essential fact.
The Court observed that an allegation of fraud must be examined in the context of its actual bearing on enrolment. The submission of a fabricated certificate, without establishing its material role in securing admission to the advocates’ roll, would not automatically attract the relevant provision of the Advocates Act.
Justice Sharma distinguished such cases from situations involving forged law degrees or mark sheets used to establish eligibility. Similarly, falsely claiming a reserved-category status to obtain a relaxation or benefit essential for enrolment could provide grounds for action.
Disputed OBC certificate at the centre of election controversy
The case arose during the 2026 Bar Council of Delhi elections, when complaints were filed questioning Kaur’s OBC certificate.
Following the complaints, the BCI ordered her removal from the advocates’ roll on May 7. The BCD Election Committee subsequently cancelled her candidature on May 12.
Kaur challenged the decision before the High Court.
During its examination, the Court noted that the disputed caste certificate had not helped her secure admission to the LLB course or obtain her law degree. This was a significant consideration in determining whether the alleged misrepresentation had played a decisive role in her enrolment.
The Court also examined her academic record. Although Kaur had obtained 44.5% marks in graduation, the BCD’s resolution dated March 15, 2019, permitted candidates with less than 45% marks to be considered for enrolment if they had subsequently obtained a law degree from an institution affiliated with the BCI.
These circumstances undermined the basis for treating the disputed certificate as sufficient grounds for striking her name off the roll.
Court reprimands advocate over certificate
While setting aside the BCI’s removal order, the High Court did not give Kaur a clean chit on the disputed document.
The Court maintained the finding that she had furnished the disputed caste certificate and reprimanded her for doing so. Its intervention was confined to the legal basis for removing her from the advocates’ roll.
The ruling thus draws a distinction between establishing that a questionable document was submitted and proving that it secured an advocate’s enrolment through fraud. For removal under the relevant provision, the latter connection must be demonstrated.