application for enrolment as an advocate = suppression that was alleged against the Appellant at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh pertains to his being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in a criminal case. Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of the Appellant. 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. It is in exercise of this power that the enrollment of the Appellant was cancelled. The first order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court. The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount to an abuse of process. The Appellant would be better advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to 5 his enrollment as Advocate


Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao 

Non -Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No .294 of2007
ANAND KUMAR SHARMA …. Appellant

Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY & ANOTHER ….Respondents
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL No._2426-2427 of 2019
[ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)…6383-6384/2019
CC Nos. 10531 – 10532 of 2013]
ANAND KUMAR SHARMA …. Appellant

Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN ETC. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)..CC Nos. 10531 – 10532 of
2013.

  1. The Appellant was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar
    Council of Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988. He applied for
    transfer of his enrolment to the State of Rajasthan which
    1
    was permitted by the Bar Council of India on 27th May, 1989.
    The Bar Council of Rajasthan received a complaint
    that the Appellant’s enrolment in the State of Himachal
    Pradesh was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant
    material. The enrolment of the Appellant was cancelled on
    6
    th November, 1995 by the Bar Council of India. The
    said order was affirmed by this Court as the Special Leave
    Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on 5th August,
    1996.
  2. Thereafter, the Appellant applied for enrolment as an
    advocate seeking exemption from training of one year in
    view of his experience as an advocate earlier. He
    approached the High Court of Rajasthan seeking a direction
    to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to decide his application for
    exemption from training. The said Writ Petition was
    dismissed by a learned Single Judge by holding that the
    Appellant was not entitled for enrolment. In the Appeal filed
    against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, a
    Division Bench directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to
    consider the application filed by the Appellant without being
    influenced by the observations made by the learned Single
    Judge.
    2
  3. The Bar Council of Rajasthan dismissed the application
    of the Appellant for enrolment on 16th January, 2000 and
    referred the matter for confirmation of the Bar Council of
    India. The Bar Council of India confirmed the
    order passed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 16th
    January, 2000.
  4. The Appellant filed yet another application for
    enrolment as an advocate before the Bar Council of
    Rajasthan which was rejected on 29th June, 2003. The Bar
    Council of India confirmed the order of 29th June, 2003 by its
    resolution dated 3rd January, 2004.
  5. The Appellant made another attempt for enrolment by
    filing an application before the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
    Initially, the said application was rejected on the ground that
    the Appellant cannot be admitted as an advocate since he
    has crossed the age of 45 years in view of Rule 1-A of the
    Enrollment Rules, Bar Council of Rajasthan framed under
    Section 28 (1) (d) read with Section 24 (1) (e) of the
    Advocates Act, 1961. The said Rule was struck down by the
    High Court of Rajasthan by judgment dated 19th August,
  6. Taking into account the earlier order dated 16th
    January, 2000 by which the application for enrolment filed
    3
    by Appellant was rejected, the Bar Council of Rajasthan
    refused to enroll the Appellant as an advocate by the order
    dated 14th July, 2012. The order dated 14th July,
    2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan was affirmed by the
    Bar Council of India on 15th September, 2012.
  7. C.A. 294 of 2007 is filed by the Appellant challenging
    the order dated 29.06.2003 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan
    and the consequential orders dated 02.01.2004 of the Bar
    Council of India and the order dated 18.03.2004 of the Bar
    Council of Rajasthan. The legality of the orders dated 14th
    July, 2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan affirmed by the
    Bar Council of India on 15th September,
    2012 is subject matter of Special Leave Petitions (Civil)… CC
    Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013.
  8. The Appellant is a qualified medical doctor who was
    appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis by the
    Government of Himachal Pradesh. In the affidavit filed in
    Special Leave Petitions (Civil)..CC Nos. 10531-10532 of
    2013, the Appellant stated that a FIR
    registered against him at Police Station Dhambola on 15th
    April, 1988. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody.
    He further stated that he was absent from service without
    obtaining leave for which reason his services were
    4
    terminated by the Director. The Appellant has also referred
    to his conviction under Section 419 of the Indian Penal
    Code, 1860 by the Judicial Magistrate on 7th January, 1988.
    He has also filed the judgment of the Sessions Judge,
    Dungarpur, Rajasthan by which his appeal against the
    conviction under Section 419 IPC was allowed. The
    suppression that was alleged against the Appellant at the
    time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council of Himachal
    Pradesh pertains to his being in Government service in the
    State of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in a criminal
    case. Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of
    the Appellant. 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. It is in exercise of this power that the
    enrollment of the Appellant was cancelled. The first
    order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his
    enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court.
    The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount
    to an abuse of process. The Appellant would be better
    advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to
    5
    his enrollment as Advocate. The orders impugned in the
    Appeals do not suffer from any infirmity and are upheld.
  9. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly.
    …………………………….J.
    [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
    …………………………….J.
    [ M.R. SHAH]
    New Delhi,
    March 01, 2019.
    6