Mere Fabricated Caste Certificate Not Enough To Remove Advocate From State Rolls: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely furnishing a fabricated caste certificate cannot justify removal of an advocate from the State Bar rolls unless the alleged fraud or misrepresentation is shown to have a nexus with obtaining enrolment.

“…the mere presence of a fraudulent document in the enrolment record cannot by itself be equated with obtaining enrolment by fraud, unless the fraud is shown to have played a material role in securing such enrolment,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held.

The Court made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) removing an advocate from the rolls after finding that she had furnished a fabricated OBC caste certificate.

The Court, however, censured and reprimanded the lawyer for furnishing the fabricated certificate, making it clear that setting aside her removal did not amount to condoning her conduct.

Vide the impugned order passed on May 07, the BCI had removed her name from the State Roll after concluding that she obtained enrolment through fraud or misrepresentation.

Her candidature in the 2026 Bar Council of Delhi elections was also subsequently cancelled. The disputed OBC caste certificate, dated October 11, 2011, was found to be fabricated after the revenue authorities informed the BCD that the certificate had not been issued by the competent authority. The certificate had formed part of the lawyer's enrolment record since her enrolment in 2019.

The Court drew a distinction between furnishing a false document during the enrolment process and obtaining enrolment by fraud.

It said that where the allegation is of obtaining enrolment by fraud, the enquiry must not end only upon finding that a forged or fabricated document was furnished during the enrolment process.

The Court observed that it must be examined whether the alleged fraud was connected with and had a bearing upon the person's entry on the State Roll.

“…. the misrepresentation or the fraud would materially affect the applicant‟s eligibility and become the means by which enrolment was secured. Such a case would squarely fall within the mischief contemplated by the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act,” the judge said.

The Court further noted that although the lawyer had secured 44.5% marks in graduation, a Bar Council of Delhi resolution already permitted enrolment of candidates with less than 45% marks who had obtained a law degree from a BCI affiliated institution.

The Court observed that the said resolution was in force when the advocate applied for enrolment and was actually relied upon for her enrolment.

Thus, it said that even if the disputed caste certificate was never furnished, the lawyer would still have been eligible for consideration and enrolment.

“This Court, therefore, holds that the mere furnishing of the disputed Caste Certificate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be treated as sufficient to attract the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act,” the Court said.

It added that the BCI was required to be satisfied not merely that the lawyer had furnished any fabricated document, but that she had got her name entered on the roll of advocates by fraud or by misrepresentation as to an essential fact.

Accordingly, Justice Sharma held that the necessary nexus between the alleged fraud and obtaining enrolment was absent and that the condition precedent for invoking the proviso to Section 26(1) was not satisfied.

“The impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the BCI, therefore, cannot be sustained. The finding that the petitioner furnished the disputed Caste Certificate is maintained; however, the conclusion that such furnishing of the Certificate attracted the proviso to Section 26(1) and warranted removal of her name from the State Roll is set aside,” the Court said.

It directed that the advocate's name be restored forthwith to the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi.

While doing so, the Court reprimanded the advocate for having furnished the disputed Caste Certificate along with her enrolment application, despite there being no necessity for her to rely upon such a document for establishing her eligibility for enrolment.

“The relief granted to her in the present petition is confined to the statutory consequence under Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, and shall not be understood as any approval of her conduct,” it concluded.