The Delhi High Court has held that the mere furnishing of a disputed or fabricated caste certificate by an advocate during the enrolment process is not sufficient for the Bar Council of India (BCI) to remove their name from the advocates’ roll [Dipinder Kaur v Bar Council of Delhi & Ors]. 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act does not give the BCI unrestricted power to remove an advocate merely because an incorrect statement was made or a non-genuine document was furnished at some stage of the enrolment process. 

“This Court, therefore, holds that the mere furnishing of the disputed Caste Certificate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be treated as sufficient to attract the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act. The BCI was required to be satisfied not merely that the petitioner had furnished any fabricated document, but that she had got her name entered on the roll of advocates by fraud or by misrepresentation as to an essential fact,” the Court said. 

The Bench stressed that in cases alleging fraud, the inquiry cannot stop at establishing that a fabricated document was submitted.

It must also be shown that the fraud materially contributed to securing the advocate's entry on the State roll, the Court said.

Justice Sharma added that the position would be different if a candidate produced a forged law degree or mark sheet to establish eligibility.

The same would also apply where a candidate falsely claimed a caste status to obtain a reservation or relaxation without which the candidate could not have been enrolled.

Justice Sharma made the observation while setting aside the BCI order removing advocate Dipinder Kaur from the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD). 

Kaur was contesting the 2026 BCD elections when complaints were lodged questioning her caste certificate. The BCI subsequently removed her name from the rolls on May 7, prompting the BCD Election Committee to cancel her candidature on May 12.

The Court found that Kaur's disputed OBC certificate had not enabled her to secure admission to the LLB course or obtain her law degree. 

It also noted that although she had secured only 44.5% marks in graduation, the BCD's March 15, 2019 resolution permitted consideration for enrolment of candidates with less than 45% marks who had subsequently obtained a law degree from a BCI-affiliated institution.

However, the Court maintained the finding that Kaur had furnished the disputed caste certificate and reprimanded her for doing so.

Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha with advocates Amitabh Narendra, Naginder Benipal, Sanjay Gupta, Ramit Malhotra, Amit Chaudhary, Ankit Siwach, Vignesh, Harjas Singh, Dhruv Tomar, Atin Chadha, Saarthak Sethi and Jaskaran appeared for the petitioner. 

Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta and T Singhdev with advocates Tanishq Srivastava, Bhanu Gulati, Anum Hussain, Yamini Singh, Sourabh Kumar and Sidhika Nagrath represented the Bar Council of Delhi. 

Bar Council of India was represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Sarin along with advocates Preet Pal Singh, Simran Kumari, Pooja and Virat Raj Mishra. 

[Read Judgment]