The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, has held that the power to remove an advocate from the State Roll under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 cannot be exercised merely because a fabricated document was furnished, unless it is established that the enrolment itself was procured by fraud or misrepresentation as to an essential fact. Setting aside an order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that directed the removal of advocate Dipinder Kaur from the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) for submitting a fabricated Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate, the Court ruled that the statutory nexus was absent because the advocate was independently eligible for enrolment under an existing BCD resolution. The Court directed the immediate restoration of her name on the State Roll, while formally censuring and reprimanding her for submitting a fabricated certificate.
Factual Background
Dipinder Kaur completed her graduation from the University of Delhi in 2012, securing 44.5% marks. She subsequently obtained her LL.B. degree in 2019 with 53.1% marks from IMIRC College of Law, affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCS University), Meerut. On December 17, 2019, she applied for enrolment with the BCD, ticking the “OBC” category box in her application form. Her enrolment file included an OBC caste certificate dated October 11, 2011, purportedly issued by the Tehsildar of Tehsil Vasundhara in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The BCD granted her enrolment on December 23, 2019, and her physical records were scanned and digitised into the Council’s electronic database in August 2021.
In late 2025, Kaur filed her nomination to contest the 2026 BCD elections and emerged as one of the leading women candidates. On March 19, 2026, while the counting of votes was in progress, two complaints were lodged by advocates Amok Kumar Gupta and Ankur Yadav, alleging that Kaur had secured both her LL.B. admission and BCD enrolment by submitting a fabricated OBC certificate to obtain relaxation in minimum qualifying marks.
Upon inquiry, the Tehsildar of Ghaziabad informed the BCD on March 25, 2026, that no such caste certificate had been issued to Kaur, that no Tehsil named “Vasundhara” existed in Ghaziabad District, and that no Tehsildar named Ahmad Mansoor had served there. Simultaneously, Kaur’s law college reported on March 28, 2026, that she had been admitted under the General category—where the prescribed threshold during the relevant session was 44.5% marks—and had never submitted any caste certificate for admission.
The BCD Enrolment Committee issued a show-cause notice on March 28, 2026, and on April 2, 2026, declined Kaur’s request for an adjournment, suspended her licence to practise, and referred the matter to the BCI. On May 7, 2026, the BCI concluded that Kaur had obtained enrolment by fraud and misrepresentation, ordering the removal of her name from the State Roll under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act. Consequentially, the BCD Election Committee eliminated her candidature from the ongoing elections on May 12, 2026, prompting her to approach the High Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that the proceedings were conducted with undue haste during ongoing elections, violating principles of natural justice. On merits, she maintained that she had merely ticked the OBC category as a member of the Khati community but had never submitted the disputed certificate, suggesting it may have been subsequently placed in her file. It was further submitted that under Section 26(1), an entry must be secured “by” fraud or misrepresentation as to an “essential fact.” Counsel highlighted that the petitioner gained no admission benefit, fee concession, or eligibility advantage, as the BCD itself had passed a resolution on March 15, 2019, resolving that candidates securing less than 45% marks in graduation who obtained an LL.B. degree from a BCI-affiliated institution would be considered for enrolment. Kaur’s enrolment form bore the official BCD stamp applying this specific resolution.
Opposing the petition, senior counsel for the BCD submitted that judicial review in writ jurisdiction is confined to Wednesbury unreasonableness and does not act as an appellate re-appreciation of facts. Relying on the Supreme Court’s order in M. Varadhan v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1319/2023 concerning the timely completion of BCD elections, the BCD maintained that prompt action was necessary. The Council argued that the record had been digitised in 2021, ruling out any recent planting of documents. It was contended that the integrity of the profession was compromised the moment a forged document was tendered, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India: (2023) 6 SCC 144.
Senior counsel for the BCI argued that the proviso to Section 26(1) operates independently for “fraud” without needing to be qualified by an “essential fact.” It was submitted that under Rule 7 of the BCI Rules of Legal Education, the minimum qualifying mark for General category candidates was 45%, which could not be relaxed or rounded off from 44.5%, and that a State Bar Council resolution could not override statutory BCI rules. Therefore, the BCI maintained that once fraud was established, removal from the rolls was mandatory and could not be mitigated by the range of penalties available under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
The Court’s Analysis
Addressing the factual controversy regarding the submission of the certificate, Justice Sharma rejected the petitioner’s plea that she had not submitted the document. The Court noted that the enrolment form explicitly directed candidates to attach a category certificate if OBC was selected, the cover page Office Report contemporaneously recorded “O.B.C. Certificate U.P. enclosed,” the certificate bore a self-attestation signature matching the petitioner’s other signatures, and the file had been scanned in 2021, long before the 2026 elections.
Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court held that while the BCD could have granted a short adjournment, the proceedings did not stand vitiated because the BCI subsequently issued a separate show-cause notice, accepted multiple replies, and heard the petitioner through counsel across three hearings.
On the core legal question under Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, the Court held that the provision does not confer an unrestricted power of removal for any false document or irregular declaration:
“the provision contemplates a situation where the entry of the person’s name on the State Roll is attributable to such misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence. There must, therefore, be a reasonable connection between the wrongful act complained of, and the obtaining of enrolment as an advocate.”
The Court distinguished the permanent removal mandated under Section 26(1) from disciplinary powers under Section 35, explaining:
“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.”
Examining the record, the Court observed that the petitioner had been admitted to her LL.B. course under the General category without relying on any caste certificate, paid full enrolment fees, and derived no academic or monetary benefit. Crucially, the BCD had adopted a resolution on March 15, 2019, resolving that candidates securing less than 45% marks in graduation who obtained an LL.B. degree from a BCI-affiliated institution would be considered for enrolment. The petitioner’s enrolment form bore the official stamp confirming that her enrolment was cleared pursuant to this resolution.
Testing the issue of causality, the Court observed:
“if the disputed Caste Certificate had never been furnished, would the petitioner nevertheless would have been considered for and enrolled as an Advocate? On the facts emerging from the record, the answer has to be in the affirmative.”
Because the petitioner fulfilled all statutory requirements under Section 24 of the Advocates Act and was eligible under the operative BCD resolution, the Court concluded that the requisite statutory nexus between the fabricated certificate and her entry on the State Roll was entirely absent.
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the BCI’s order dated May 7, 2026, and directing that Dipinder Kaur’s name be restored forthwith to the roll of advocates maintained by the BCD.
However, the Court clarified that its decision did not condone her conduct. Emphasizing the seriousness of placing a fabricated document on official records, Justice Sharma held:
“The petitioner is, therefore, censured and reprimanded 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.”
Case Title: Dipinder Kaur v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6895/2026, CM APPL. 33864/2026, CM APPL. 33865/2026, CM APPL. 39306/2026 & CM APPL. 39307/2026
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: 08.10.2026
