Anand Kumar vs Bar Council Of Delhi Through Its Secretary And Anr.

$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010385252026
+ LPA 648/2026, CM APPLs. 55473/2026 & 55476/2026
ANAND KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Appellant-in-person.
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr.
Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Anum
Hussain, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Mr.
Sourabh Kumar, Advocates for BCD.
Mr. Preetpal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet
Kaur and Mr. Gaurav, Advocates for
BCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
CM No. 55475/2026 ( Exemption )
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application is accordingly disposed of.
CM No. 55474/2026 ( Condonation of Delay )
3. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant
seeking condonation of delay of 173 days in preferring the present Appeal.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed, and the
delay of 173 days in filing the present Appeal stands condoned. The
Application is accordingly disposed of.
LPA 648/2026
5. The present intra court Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant
assailing the order dated 14.01.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8008/2025 (“ Writ Petition ”), whereby the
learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.
6. The facts germane to the present Appeal, briefly stated, are that the
Appellant, Mr. Anand Kumar, completed a three-year Legum Baccalaureus
(“ LLB ”) course from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh
(“ University ”), and has been enrolled as a practising Advocate with
Respondent No. 1, Bar Council of Delhi (“ BCD ”), since the year 2001.
7. The Respondents initiated the process of verification of LLB degrees
of practising Advocates pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. , order dated
02.05.2017 in T.C.(C) 126/2015. Accordingly, vide letter dated 21.08.2019,
BCD, while referring to the Appellant’s name at Serial No. 11, stated that
the University had not verified his LLB roll number.
8. In the year 2019, the University issued a communication to BCD
(“ Verification Letter ”) stating that the Appellant’s records were not
available. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 16.09.2019 was
issued to the Appellant, to which he submitted a reply dated 24.10.2019.
Thereafter, BCD issued another show cause notice dated 31.10.2019, in
response to which the Appellant sought further time to submit his reply.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

Respondent No. 2, Bar Council of India (“ BCI ”), by letter dated 22.09.2021,
informed the Appellant that removal proceedings had been initiated against
him under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (“ Act ”),
on the ground that his name had been entered on the roll of Advocates by
misrepresentation and fraud, without his degree having been sent for re-
verification by the University.
9. In January 2024, the Appellant instituted a writ petition, being
W.P.(C) No. 3854/2024, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
(“ Allahabad Petition ”), seeking a formal declaration as to the validity of
his academic credentials, which is sub judice . Thereafter, the University
issued a verification report dated 20.03.2024 (“ Verification Report ”),
stating that the Appellant’s mark sheets and LLB degree for all three years
were not genuine. By orders dated 02.04.2024 and 10.06.2024 (“ Suspension
Orders ”), BCD removed the Appellant from the roll of Advocates based on
the Verification Report.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant instituted a second writ petition,
being W.P. No. 24364/2024, before the High Court of Allahabad, seeking a
stay of the Suspension Orders. The said writ petition was dismissed vide
order dated 21.10.2024 for want of territorial jurisdiction.
11. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition before this Court,
assailing the Suspension Orders. During the pendency of the Writ Petition,
the Delhi Police filed a charge sheet in FIR No. 549/2020 (“ FIR ”) registered
at Police Station, Hauz Khas under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, which was registered as C.R. No. 5312/2025 against the
Appellant before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

Court, New Delhi (“ Trial Court ”). The said proceedings are presently at the
stage of recording prosecution evidence of the Secretary, BCD.
12. The Writ Petition was dismissed vide the Impugned Order, wherein
learned Single Judge held that mere pendency of proceedings at the instance
of a litigant before any Court does not, by itself, operate as a bar or restraint
upon a statutory authority from exercising its independent powers or
discharging its statutory obligations.
13. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has preferred
the present Appeal.
14. The Appellant-in-person submitted that learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the Suspension Orders had been passed in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice, without awaiting the outcome of the
Allahabad Petition, which pertains to the same issue.
15. The Appellant-in-person further submitted that learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate that the Suspension Orders directly infringe the
Appellant’s fundamental right to practice his profession and earn a
livelihood under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
(“ Constitution ”), causing severe hardship to the Appellant.
16. The Appellant-in-person also submitted that learned Single Judge
failed to take into account the subsequent filing of the charge sheet in FIR,
the trial of which is presently pending at the stage of evidence and that
continuing the Appellant’s suspension while the criminal trial remains
undecided amounts to pre-trial punishment.
17. The Appellant-in-person also submitted that learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate that there exists a material contradiction between the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

Verification Letter, which stated that the roll number was not found in the
University records, and the subsequent Verification Report, which alleged
that the degree was not genuine. The delay, if any, in verification of a degree
that is nearly 23 years old is purely an administrative matter between the
University, BCD and BCI, and the Appellant cannot be penalised or
deprived of his livelihood on account of such inter-departmental delay, for
which he is not responsible.
18. Per contra , learned Senior Counsel for BCD submitted that learned
Single Judge rightly held that mere pendency of proceedings before any
Court does not restrain a statutory authority from discharging its obligations
under the Act. The Suspension Orders were passed on the basis of the
Verification Report issued by the University itself, stating that the
Appellant’s mark sheets and LLB degree were not genuine, and BCD was
duty-bound to act on such findings.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for BCD further submitted that the pendency
of the criminal trial in FIR neither exonerates the Appellant nor dilutes the
Verification Report, and that the suspension is a protective, not punitive,
measure necessitated by credible allegations of fraud, aimed at safeguarding
the sanctity of the legal profession and the interests of the litigating public.
20. We have heard the Appellant-in-person and learned Senior Counsel
for BCD as well as perused the material placed on record.
21. The principal question that arises for adjudication is whether the
Suspension Orders passed by BCD suffer from any illegality or violation of
the principles of natural justice, and, in the absence of any such infirmity,
whether the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the Impugned
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

Order dismissing the Writ Petition warrant interference in the present intra
court Appeal.
22. Upon a perusal of the Impugned Order, it is evident that the sole
grievance urged by the Appellant before learned Single Judge was that, so
long as the question pertaining to the genuineness and verification of his
LLB degree remained pending consideration in the Allahabad Petition, BCD
ought to have refrained from passing Suspension Orders.
23. Learned Single Judge has held that the mere pendency of the
Allahabad Petition does not, by itself, operate as a bar upon BCD from
exercising its independent powers or discharging its statutory obligations
under the Act, and that, unless there exists a specific order of stay or express
interdiction issued in the Allahabad Petition, BCD was neither divested of
jurisdiction nor precluded from proceeding in accordance with law.
24. We entirely agree with the aforesaid findings of learned Single Judge
in the Impugned Order. Undisputedly, no stay order or interim direction has
been passed in Allahabad Petition restraining BCD from proceeding against
the Appellant in accordance with the Act. In the absence of any such
restraint, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion that BCD, being a
statutory authority empowered under Section 49 of the Act to frame rules
relating to standards of legal education, qualifications for enrolment, and the
conditions subject to which an Advocate is entitled to practise, was well
within its jurisdiction to initiate and conclude the proceedings
notwithstanding the pendency of the Allahabad Petition. The allegation of
violation of the principles of natural justice is, accordingly, devoid of merit.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

25. Insofar as the plea alleging violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution is concerned, the right to practise a profession is not absolute
and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in furtherance of a statutory
framework intended to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and
protect the interests of the litigating public. Upon receipt of the Verification
Letter from the University indicating non-availability of the Appellant’s
records, and subsequently the Verification Report casting doubt upon the
genuineness of his degree, BCD was obliged, in discharge of its statutory
duties, to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, we do not agree
with the submissions of the Appellant regarding violation of fundamental
right to practice profession of law without any regulatory oversight from
BCD or BCI.
26. The criminal trial arising out of the FIR is distinct from, and
independent of, the regulatory proceedings before BCD. While the criminal
trial is concerned with determining whether the charges against the
Appellant are proved on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the
Suspension Orders have been passed in furtherance of the statutory duty of
BCD to examine the eligibility of Advocates and their continued entitlement
to remain on the rolls. The mere pendency of the criminal trial at the stage of
evidence, does not render the Suspension Orders premature, nor can the
continuation of suspension pending conclusion of the trial be construed as
pre-trial punishment.
27. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Appellant has failed to make
out any ground warranting interference with the Impugned Order dated
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15

14.01.2026. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending
Applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
AUGUST 19, 2026
N
Signature Not Verified
LPA 648/2026 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:58:15