Advocate restored to rolls after Delhi High Court finds forged caste certificate did not secure her enrolment

Dipinder Kaur was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) in 2019.

During the 2026 BCD elections, complaints alleged that she had used a fabricated OBC caste certificate to obtain admission to her LL.B. course and enrolment.

The certificate was found in her enrolment file and verified as not having been issued by the stated authority.

The BCD referred the matter to the Bar Council of India (BCI), which removed her name from the State Roll under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The BCI also relied on the certificate’s presence in the enrolment record, notwithstanding the law college’s confirmation that she had been admitted in the General category.

Kaur challenged the removal and the consequential cancellation of her election candidature.

Whether Kaur had furnished the disputed caste certificate with her enrolment application.

Whether the proceedings were vitiated by a denial of natural justice.

Whether Kaur obtained any benefit or relaxation by furnishing the certificate.

Whether furnishing the fabricated certificate meant that she obtained entry on the State Roll “by fraud” or “by misrepresentation as to an essential fact” within the proviso to Section 26(1).

The proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the BCI to remove a person’s name from the State Roll where that person obtained entry by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, fraud or undue influence, after an opportunity to be heard.

The wrongful act must have a reasonable connection with obtaining enrolment; the mere presence of a false document in the enrolment record does not, by itself, establish that enrolment was obtained by fraud.

Misrepresentation must concern a fact essential to the person’s eligibility or entitlement to enrolment.

Section 24 prescribes qualifications for admission to a State Roll, while Section 35 addresses disciplinary action for professional or other misconduct after enrolment.

The BCD’s resolution of 15 March 2019 provided for consideration for enrolment of candidates with less than 45% graduation marks who had obtained a law degree from a BCI-affiliated institution.

The Court upheld the finding that Kaur had furnished the fabricated certificate: she had selected the OBC category on her form, the form required a category certificate, the contemporaneous office report recorded that a UP OBC certificate was enclosed, and the digitised record pre-dated the complaints.

It rejected the natural-justice challenge because, despite the BCD’s refusal of a short adjournment, Kaur received a separate notice, filed detailed responses and was heard by the BCI, which made the final removal decision.

However, the law college confirmed that she had obtained admission under the General category, and the BCD’s 2019 resolution had been applied to her enrolment despite her 44.5% graduation marks.

No enrolment-fee concession or other benefit from her OBC status was shown.

The Court therefore found that she could have been considered for enrolment even without the certificate; the necessary statutory nexus between the fabrication and obtaining enrolment was not established.

It set aside the BCI’s removal order and directed the BCD to restore her name to the rolls forthwith.

The Court nevertheless censured and reprimanded Kaur for furnishing the fabricated document; the petition was disposed of accordingly.