“YOGENDRA PRAKASH JAUHARI Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.”

(Advocacy & Professional Ethics)

Submitted by :- Submitted to:-

Divas Bhagat Asst. Prof. Dinesh Babu

B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) Faculty of Law 10thSem.

(Seedling School of Law & Governance)

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Table of Contents

DECLARATION .................................................... 3 CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERVISOR ............ 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................... 5 Facts ......................................................................... 6 Issues .................................................................... 8 Arguments Advanced .................................. 9 Judgment ............................................................... 11 Appeal .................................................................... 17 Arguments Advanced ................................ 17 Judgment ........................................................... 19

DECLARATION

I declare that the project entitled “YOGENDRA PRAKASH JAUHARI Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF

INDIA & ORS” is the outcome of my own work conducted under the supervision of Assistant

Professor Manish Yadav at Seedling School of Law & Governance (Jaipur National

University),Jaipur (Rajasthan)

I further declare that to the best of my Knowledge the project does not contain any part of any

work which has not given a proper citation.

DIVAS BHAGAT

CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that the research work entitled “YOGENDRA PRAKASH JAUHARI Vs. BAR

COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS” is the work done by Divas Bhagat under my guidance and

supervision for the Partial fulfillment of the requirement of LL.B. degree of Seedling School of

Law & Governance.

To the best of my Knowledge and belief that the project : (i) embodies the work of the candidate

himself; (ii) has been duly completed; and (iii) is up to the standard both in respect of contents

and language for being referred to the examiner.

Dr. Dinesh Babu

Assistant Professor of Law

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express profound gratitude to Dr, Dinesh Babu, for his invaluable support,

encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions throughout this research work. His moral

support and continuous guidance enabled me to complete my work successfully. His intellectual

thrust and blessings motivated me to work rigorously on this study. In fact this study could not

have seen the light of the day if his contribution had not been available. It would be no

exaggeration to say that it is his unflinching faith and unquestioning support that has provided

the sustenance necessary to see it through to its present shape.

I am grateful to our Hon’ble Director Professor V.S. Mani , Jaipur National

University,Jaipur for his evincing keen interest in the LL.B course and continuous

encouragement given during our period of study.

I express my sincere thanks to my respected teachers Associate Professor Mr Manish

Yadav, Mr. Sugato (Assistant Professor) for taking out their precious time and advising me on

various aspects of the study.

Among those who have sustained me over the years with their loyalty and friendship, I

would particularly mention my friends, Ankit Mathur, Anchit Verma, Chetan Deep Singh have

always taken a special interest in my work and unconditional support at each turn of the life.

I must also thank and express my heartfelt gratitude to the library staff of Jaipur National

University, Jaipur, for helping me out in carrying out the research necessary for the dissertation.

I express my deep sincere gratitude towards my parents for their blessing, patience, and moral

support in the successful completion of LL.B course.

I express my gratitude to my all teachers and friends who has supported and encouraged me

during my study at Jaipur national university, Jaipur.

Divas Bhagat

Facts

In 1992 the Petitioner was appointed as a steno-typist in the court of the Sessions Judge at

Gurgaon, Haryana. In 1997 the Petitioner was attached to the court of the Judicial Magistrate 1 st

Class („JMIC‟), Nuh. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he suffered harassment at the hands of

the JMIC and requested for a transfer on 17th September 1997. However certain orders adverse to

the Petitioner were passed by the JMIC which according to the Petitioner were set aside by the

Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. It is stated that an FIR No. 3 dated 2nd April 1991 under the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 („PCA‟) was registered against the Petitioner on false pretexts. He was

granted bail on 7th April 1999. It is not denied that ultimately the Petitioner was convicted in the

said case and his services were terminated. However his termination order was made conditional

upon the outcome of the appeal filed by the Petitioner in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

The High Court, while admitting his appeal, suspended the sentences awarded to the Petitioner.

3. It is stated that while being posted in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, at Ferozpur

Jhirka, during the session 1992-95 the Petitioner sought permission of the competent authority

and applied for a three-year regular degree course in law from D.S. College, Aligarh. He claims

that the classes for the course at the said college used to be held in the evening/late evening

hours. On 13th May 2005 the Petitioner filed an application for enrolment before the BCPH.

However the Petitioner claims to have “got hints from certain sectors” that his application for

enrolment would be turned down on account of the pressure brought on the BCPH by the JMIC.

Accordingly, the Petitioner applied to the Bar Council of Delhi („BCD‟) on 30 th June 2005. The

BCD enrolled the Petitioner as an Advocate with effect from 7th July 2005 and he was allotted

Enrolment No.D-519/05. After his enrolment with the BCD, the Petitioner wrote to the BCPH

seeking withdrawal of his application.

4. On 16th September 2005 the Bar Association of Nuh through Shri Zakir Hussain, Advocate

lodged a complaint against the Petitioner with the BCD in which it was stated that pursuant to his

arrest in the PCA case, the Petitioner remained in judicial custody for one month and upon

completion of trial he was convicted. The Petitioner had obtained law degree during the period of

his suspension from service. The BCPH had refused to enroll him as he was convicted in the

aforementioned case. Moreover the Petitioner had concealed before the BCD that he had applied

to the BCPH earlier.

On 27th November 2005 the BCPH by a resolution (which has been challenged in this petition)

proposed to the BCI that the Petitioner‟s enrolment should be refused. On this basis by a

resolution dated 11th/12thFebruary 2006, the BCI passed a resolution accepting the

recommendation of the BCPH. Two more complaints dated 13 th and 14th February 2008 were

filed against the Petitioner with the BCPH. Since these complaints could not be decided within

the stipulated period, they were transferred to the BCI. On 19 th July 2008 the Disciplinary

Committee of the BCI proposed the removal of the Petitioner‟s name from the rolls of the BCD.

Thereafter by an order dated 12th October 2008 passed in Removal Proceedings No. 4/2008, the

BCI directed removal of the Petitioner‟s name from rolls of the BCI. The petitioner‟s Review

Petition was dismissed on 24th December 2008. All of the aforementioned resolutions and

orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

Issues

1. Whether Right to Enrollment is only a Stautory Right or a Fundamental Right?

2. Whether the Petitioner could make an application to the BCD for enrolment as

Advocate even while a similar application made to the BCPH was pending and

further that still he was mandatorily required to disclose this fact in his application filed

with the BCD.

Arguments Advanced

1. Pursuant to the notice issued in the petition, replies have been filed by both the Chairman

of the Committee of the BCI, Respondent No.5 and the BCI. It is pointed out by the BCI

that right to enrolment is only a statutory right and is not a fundamental right. It is not

automatically granted upon a person merely fulfilling the eligibility conditions. This is

made clear in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (AA). It is emphasized that

attendance of lectures and tutorials in the law degree course is an essential part of the

training of a law student as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Sharma

v. Bar Council of H.P. (2001) 2 SCC 365. It is submitted that a comprehensive reading

of the Sections 24 and 49 of the Act read with Rules 1(i)(c) and Rule 4 in part 4 of the

Bar Council of India Rules („BCI Rules‟) showed that the BCI as the apex professional

body is concerned with the standards of the legal profession. It prescribes norms for those

seeking entrance to the profession. It is submitted that the college in which the Petitioner

claims to have been admitted is in Aligarh which is at least 170 km from the place of his

posting at Firozpur Jhirka. Since the travel time between the place of work and the

college would take four hours one way and since the Petitioner was a full time employee

who was not given leave to attend classes, it is obvious that the LL.B degree obtained by

the Petitioner was without attending regular classes. Therefore the Petitioner was not

entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate.

More seriously it is pointed out that in the enrolment form filed with the BCD the Petitioner did

not disclose the details of his conviction in a criminal case. Further in his enrolment application

form submitted to the BCD, the Petitioner did not disclose that he had already applied for

enrolment with the BCPH and that his application there was pending. He in fact made a

misdeclaration in this regard in Column 20 of the enrolment form. It is submitted that this was

misdeclaration of an essential particular within the meaning of the proviso to Section 26 AA and

therefore for the above reasons the Petitioner‟s name was rightly removed from the BCD.

2. In his rejoinder the petitioner has placed a copy of the attendance certificate issued by the

D.S. College at Aligarh in which it is mentioned that the Petitioner had completed the

requisite attendance as per the rule of the University i.e. 75% as per college record. It is

then pointed out that there were other people who were employees of the judicial

department of the Government of Haryana posted in Gurgaon and during their posting

they completed their three years‟ LL.B in like manner. It is submitted that while no

action was taken against those persons, the Petitioner was being singled out for

discriminatory treatment.

Mr.Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that there is no provision in the

AA which prevents a person from applying for enrolment simultaneously to two different State

Bar Councils. Reference is made to Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter II Part V of the BCI Rules.

Secondly, it is submitted that non-furnishing of information to the BCD about having filed an

application for enrolment before the BCPH was not a material concealment warranting the recall

of his enrolment. It is submitted that if at all a person is enrolled in two State Bar Councils, the

Rules require that he has to surrender the enrolment certificate of one of them. The petitioner had

after being enrolled with the BCD, withdrawn his application before the BCPH. There was

therefore no concealment of any material facts warranting the resolution of the BCPH and the

impugned decision of the BCI. Without prejudice to these contentions it is submitted that the

punishment of removal from the rolls was disproportionate and harsh. It is further urged that the

Petitioner‟s written brief of arguments was not considered when his case was finalized by the

BCI at the meeting held on 12th October 2008. The notings in the file show that the decision to

remove the Petitioner from the rolls was taken on 12th September 2008 itself.

3. On behalf of the BCI, Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned counsel submits that there was no

question of the Petitioner having 75% attendance and therefore such a law degree

obtained by the Petitioner could not be acted upon. It is further submitted that the

Petitioner far from giving a satisfactory explanation for suppressing the material facts

before the BCD both as regards his conviction in a criminal case as well as an application

made before the BCPH which was pending as on that date, made wild allegations against

the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI, i.e. Respondent No.5 herein.

Judgment

1. This Court has considered the above submissions. The scheme of the AA indicates that

there is a central body known as the BCI and there are different State Bar Councils. As

far as Delhi is concerned, it initially was a Union Territory and Section 3(i)(f) of the AA

provided that for the Union Territory of Delhi there would be separate Bar Council which

would for all purposes be a state Bar Council. One of the functions of the State Bar

Council under Section 6(1)(a) is to admit persons as Advocates on its rolls. The other

functions include entertaining and determining cases of misconduct against Advocates

and to do all other things necessary for the discharge of its functions. As far as the BCI is

concerned among its principal functions is to lay down standards of professional conduct

for the Advocates and to lay down the procedures for its Disciplinary Committee and the

Disciplinary Committee of each of the State Bar Councils. The composition of the

Disciplinary Committee is set out under Section 9 of the AA. Section 17 requires the

State Bar Council to maintain a roll of Advocates. Under Section 18 a person whose

name is entered as an Advocate in the roll of any State Bar Council can make an

application to the BCI for transfer of his name

“from the roll of that Bar Council to the roll of any other Bar Council” and on receipt of such

application, the BCI shall direct that the name of such person shall be removed from the first

mentioned State Bar Council and enrolled to the other Bar Council and the State Bar Council

shall comply with this direction. Under the proviso to Section 18, the BCI has the power to reject

any application if it has not been made bonafide, or by a person against whom any disciplinary

proceedings is pending, after complying with the principles of natural justice. Under Section 24

of the AA, for being admitted to as an Advocate on a State roll, a person has to be a citizen of

India, has to have completed 21 years of age, has to have obtained a degree in law and should

fulfill other conditions as may be prescribed in the rules made by the State Bar Council.

Section 24A stipulates that no person shall be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll if he is

convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude of if he is convicted of an offence under the

provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 provided that the disqualification shall

cease t have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release.

2. Sections 26 and 27 of the AA which are material for the purposes of the present case read

as under:

“26. Disposal of application for admission as an Advocate.__

(1) A State Bar Council shall refer every application for admission as an advocate to

its enrolment committee, and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3),

[and to any direction that may be given in writing by the State Bar Council in this

behalf] such committee shall dispose of the application in the prescribed manner:

[Provided that the Bar Council of India may, if satisfied, either on a reference made to

it in this behalf or otherwise, that any person has got his name entered on the roll of

advocates by misrepresentation as to an essential fact or by fraud or undue influence,

remove the name of such person from the roll of advocates after giving him an

opportunity of being heard.]

(2) Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council proposes to refuse any

such application, it shall refer the application for opinion to the Bar Council of India

and every such reference shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds in

support of the refusal of the application.

(3) The enrolment committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of any application

referred to the Bar Council of India under sub-section (2) in conformity with the

opinion of the Bar Council of India.

(4)Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council has refused any application

for admission as an advocate on its roll, the State Bar Council shall as soon as may

be, send intimation to all other State Bar Councils about such refusal stating the

name, address and qualification of the person whose application was refused and the

grounds for the refusal.

27. Application once refused not to be entertained by

another Bar Council except in certain circumstances- Where a State Bar Council

has refused the application of any person for admission as an advocate on its roll, no

other State Bar Council shall entertain an application for admission of such person as

an advocate on its roll, except with the previous consent in writing of the State Bar

Council which refused the application and of the Bar Council of India.”

3. What calls for determination in the first place is whether the Petitioner could

make an application to the BCD for enrolment as Advocate even while a similar

application made to the BCPH was pending and further that still he was mandatorily

required to disclose this fact in his application filed with the BCD. As far as the factual

matrix is concerned, there is no denial that in the application filed before the BCD in

Column 20 the Petitioner wrote „N.A.‟ („not applicable‟) against the column seeking

information whether he had made a previous application for enrolment as an Advocate.

He also wrote „No‟ in the same column. The date of application with the BCD was 5 th

July 2005. On that day the Petitioners application with the BCPH was pending

consideration. Clearly, therefore, the Petitioner consciously sought to mislead the BCD

by holding out that had in fact not made any application previously to a State Bar

Council.

4. This Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

that the above was at best a concealment and not a misdeclaration as to an “essential” fact

as contained in provision to Section 26. If the Petitioner had not written anything at all in

the said column it could still be argued that it was perhaps only a concealment and not a

misdeclaration. However, the Petitioner has deliberately written „N.A.‟ and „No‟ and

therefore there can be no doubt that it is a misdeclaration. Further giving the context of

Section 27 where it is important for a State Bar Council to know of the status of the

application made by the same person before any other State Bar Council, this fact is no

doubt an „essential‟ fact within the meaning of the proviso to Section 26 of the AA. Even

where such earlier application before another State Bar Council is pending, there can be

developments that might take place between the making of the subsequent application

and its being taken up for consideration and such development may have a material

bearing on the decision of the State Bar Council to which the subsequent application is

made. Further, the Petitioner furnished to the BCD an affidavit dated 14 th June 2005

undertaking to disclose all the information asked in the application form. Therein the

Petitioner stated that any omission to disclose or any misrepresentation “shall render my

application invalid and liable to be cancelled.” For all of the above reasons, this Court

fully concurs with the findings of the BCI that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of an

„essential‟ fact in the application made by him to the BCD.

5. There is merit in the contention of the counsel for the BCI that the LL.B degree obtained

by the Petitioner was not accepted since the BCI‟s Rules concerning attendance were

not fulfilled. Under Rule 1(i)(c) Section B, Part IV of the BCI Rules, an applicant

has to fulfill the condition of „regular attendance‟. Rule 3 of Section B, Part IV of the

BCI Rules reads as under:

“3. The students shall be required to put in a minimum attendance of 66% of

the lectures on each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and

practical training course:

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and

communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law

and the Principal of Law Colleges may condone attendance short of those

required by the Rule, if the student has attendance 66% of the lectures in

aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be.”

6. The letter dated 25th August 2005 from the Office of the District & Sessions Judge,

Gurgaon showed that during 1992 to 1995 the Petitioner did not avail of any study leave.

The service record of the Petitioner showed that he availed of 12 days‟ leave

between 1992 and 1995. Although before the BCI shows the Petitioner did not

place any document of the law college showing that it was working during summer

vacations, the Petitioner has sought to produce along with the present petition an

attendance certificate issued by the Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh. The certificate raises

more questions than it answers because it asserts that the Petitioner completed the

requisite attendance as per the rules of the University i.e. 75% as per the college record. It

is indeed surprising that while his service record shows that he availed of only 12 days‟

leave altogether, the above certificate asserts that he had 75% attendance. It is plain,

therefore, that the Petitioner was unable to satisfy the BCI that he in fact, attended the

minimum number of classes at a college in Aligarh in UP 170 km away while working in

the District & Sessions Court at Ferozpur Jhirka, Haryana. The decision of the BCI to

strictly enforce the above rules of attendance is consistent with the decisions of the

Supreme Court in Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 91;

Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick (1994) 2 SCC 102 and by this Court in S.

N. Singh v. Union of India 2003 (106) DLT 329. If certain others were granted

enrolment wrongly despite not fulfilling the attendance requirement, it is for the

concerned State Bar Council to take corrective action. It by no means can give a right to

the Petitioner to seek parity with such persons.

7. The third difficulty in the way of the Petitioner is his having been convicted in a criminal

case involving moral turpitude. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner was convicted

by the order dated 25th February 2005 of the Special Judge, Chandigarh under Section 7

of the PC Act and sentenced to imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- and in

default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of two months. A similar sentence has

been passed upon his conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court when admitting the appeal on 15 th March 2005 only

granted him bail but did not suspend the conviction itself. Under Section 24A no person

shall be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll, if convicted of an offence involving

moral turpitude. Two years have not elapsed since his release. That event is yet to occur.

Therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to be enrolled even on this ground.

8. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no ground having been made out for

interference with the decision of the BCI. The petition is accordingly dismissed with

costs.

9. Before concluding this, the Court would like to emphasise that it is important for the

State Bar Councils to deal with applications made for enrolment of a person as an

Advocate with care and attention. Possessing a law degree from a recognized institution

although mandatory will by itself not suffice. The State Bar Council or the BCI as the

case may be will, apart from verifying with the concerned University the authenticity of

the certificate, also call for a copy of the record of the applicants attendance. Further,

each State Bar Council should preferably maintain a website on which details of all

pending applications for enrolment and their current status should be posted. This will

enable any other State Bar Council to immediately verify if the applicant seeking

enrolment has in fact applied to any other State Bar Council. Secondly, in the application

for enrolment, certain columns must be made mandatory for being filled up by applicants

including Column 20. An applicant must be made to disclose whether the application

made to any other State Bar Council is pending and if disposed of, with what result.

These are suggestions to the BCI and the State Bar Council who may suitably incorporate

the changes by amending the forms and the applicable rules.

10. A certified copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, BCD, the Secretary BCPH and the

Secretary of the BCI within a period of seven days.

Appeal

1. These Intra-Court appeals impugn the judgments, both dated 15.02.2010 of the learned

Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.(C) No.7406/2009 and W.P.(C)

No.12356/2009 preferred by the appellant. Notice of the appeals was issued and the

counsels have been heard.

Arguments Advanced

1. The appellant before us has contended that he has been wrongly held guilty, while

applying to the BCD of having practiced fraud and concealed the earlier application to

the BCPH with mala fide intent. It is argued that if the appellant had intended any

concealment, it would have been of the factum of his conviction but which was fully

disclosed. As far as the information furnished against column No.20 (supra) of the

application form is concerned, it is argued that the appellant was under the bona fide

impression that the same did not apply to him since no decision had been taken on his

application to the BCPH. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge had

erroneously held the distance between the place of posting of the appellant and the law

College as 170 Kms. when infact it was around 80 Kms. away and which he was

traversing every day in a Jeep. It is further argued that the law College had certified that

the appellant had attended 75% of the classes and without the said certificate and the

LL.B Degree being set aside, the BCI could not disbelieve the same. Qua LPA

No.415/2010, it is additionally argued that the issues therein were entirely different and

have wrongly been not dealt with.

2. The senior counsel for the BCI, BCD and BCPH has per contra contended that the BCI is

not bound to grant enrolment to all possessing a LL.B Degree and is entitled to satisfy

itself of the fulfillment of the conditions / criteria laid down by it. He has invited out

attention to BCI Vs. Aparna Basu Mallick (1994) 2 SCC 102 and to Satish Kumar

Sharma Vs. Bar Council of H.P. (2001) 2 SCC 365. While the latter of the said

judgments merely emphases the need for fulfillment of the rules of enrolment, in the

former the decision of the BCI to deny enrolment for the reason of the applicant having

not pursued regular course of study at any college notwithstanding Degree was upheld by

the Supreme Court.

3. As far as the controversy qua distance is concerned, it is the admission of the appellant

also that the law college was at a distance of 70/90 Kms. from the place of his posting.

Even if we were to go by the said distance, we find ourselves unable to interfere with the

finding of fact of a professional body like the BCI to the effect that the appellant could

not have attended the classes regularly so as to be in a position to satisfy the said

condition for enrolment. The BCI in this regard has noted:

(i) that inspite of being required to produce documents to satisfy having attended the

requisite classes, no such documents were produced; save for himself stating that

the classes commenced during late evening hours, no details of the timings of the

classes were furnished;

(ii) that the records of the office of the District and Session Judge, Gurgaon did not

show the appellant having obtained Study leave / earned leave to attend the

regular classes;

(iii) that the appellant had obtained permission from the District & Session Judge,

Gurgaon for admission as a private candidate only but in contravention thereof

joined as a regular candidate and which also clearly amounted to cheating / fraud

with the employer;

(iv) though the appellant claimed to have attended the law classes during summer

vacation but could not produce any document from the law college in support

thereof;

(v) that the appellant has failed to prove as to how he attended regular classes at a

long distance;

(vi) thus the appellant‟s attendance in law classes appeared to be by proxy and not by

physical presence;

(vii) that for enrolment with the BCI, an applicant is required to show that he had

actually and physically attended the required percentage of lectures at law college

during the law course.

Judgment

1. The appellant before us also has not been able to satisfy the possibility if at all of his

having attended the requisite law classes. Moreover, it was the application of the

appellant for enrolment with BCPH which was rejected on the ground of the appellant

having not attended and or could not have attended the requisite number of classes. That

decision of the BCI i.e. of 08.03.2006 (supra) attained finality and is not subject matter of

either of the writ petitions from which these appeals have arisen. Once BCI qua the

application for enrolment made to BCPH had held that the appellant did not possess the

requisite qualifications, the revocation of the enrolment with BCD on the basis of the

same LL.B degree was axiomatic. We reiterate that the appellant allowed the order dated

08.03.2006 (supra) of BCI to attain finality. He thus can in any case be not heard to

challenge the same in these appeals arising from writ petitions challenge wherein was not

to the order dated 08.03.2006 of BCI.

2. We are unable to find any error requiring interference in exercise of powers of judicial

review in the order dated 12.10.2008 (supra) of the BCI finding the appellant to have

fraudulently and with a malafide intent withheld essential facts while applying for

enrolment with BCD.

3. We are of the opinion that in the entirety of the facts aforesaid, no case for interference

with the jurisdiction exercised by the professional bodies of refusing enrolment to the

appellant is made out. The Supreme Court recently in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar Delhi

High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 has expressed grave concern and dismay on the decline of

ethical and professional standards among lawyers and erosion of the professional values

among lawyers at all levels and the immediate need for arresting and reversing the said

trend. It was held that unless the same is done, it will have deleterious consequences for

the administration of justice in the country. It was further held that no judicial system in a

democratic society can work satisfactorily unless it is supported by a Bar that enjoys the

unqualified trust and confidence of the people, that shares the aspirations, hopes and the

ideals of the people. The Supreme Court observed that the Bar Council of India and the

Bar Councils of different States cannot escape their responsibility in this regard.

4. The conduct of the appellant of, while applying to BCD, wrongly stating that he had not

made any earlier application to any other Bar Council is not found to be an isolated

incident. Rather the consistent conduct of the appellant of i) seeking permission for doing

LL.B course as a private student but joining the same as a regular student; ii) to not

disclosing to the Session Division, Gurgaon where the appellant was employed, thereafter

also of having joined the LL.B course as a regular student; iii) conviction for corruption;

iv) first applying to BCPH and thereafter to BCD for enrolment; v) having secured LL.B

degree by attending classes by proxy and which finding as aforesaid has attained finality;

vi) not informing BCD of rejection of his application for enrolment with BCPH by the

BCI; and vii) applying again for enrolment with BCPH after his enrolment with BCD had

been revoked, speaks volume of the nature and character of the appellant. We are thus

unable to accept the explanation offered by the appellant of the mis-declaration in filling

up the application for enrolment with BCD being bonafide. The conduct aforesaid rather

shows the appellant to be a believer of, achieving his goals by hook or by crook. It cannot

also be lost sight of that the appellant was / is not a fresher to the field of law. He before

applying for enrolment for, nearly 13 years was working in the Courts and can be held to

be aware of all his action. We have wondered whether such a person even otherwise is

entitled to discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

answer obviously is no.

5. Insofar as LPA No.415/2010 is concerned, once it is held that the appellant had not

attended the requisite law classes, the question of his enrolment in BCI does not arise.

6. We therefore do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss thesame. We refrain

ourselves from imposing any costs.