The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea filed by a lawyer challenging the suspension of his licence nearly two decades after he began practising law [Jagmal Singh Mandhan vs. Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed serious doubts about the lawyer’s eligibility to practise, questioning how he could have been enrolled if he had crossed the prescribed age limit of 45 years at the time.

The lawyer had allegedly lowered his age to make himself eligible for enrolment as an advocate.

The Court noted that if his declared age at the time of enrolment was accepted, he would have been only about 12 years old at the time his children were born.

The documents also showed that his two children, who were themselves enrolled as advocates, were recorded as having been born in the same year with a gap of only two months.

“Do we need such state lawyers who change their age to circumvent bar of 45 years? You have two children. Do you have two wives? Only then you could have two children with the difference of 2 months. Not otherwise. Everything is wrong. Do they deserve any equitable relief?” the Bench questioned.

The lawyer's counsel submitted that he had practised law for nearly 20 years and had also served as the President of a subdivisional bar association, suggesting that the action against him was driven by internal Bar politics.

“Twenty years he was president of the bar. He has been a victim of bar politics,” he submitted.

The Court was not persuaded by the submission and remarked that long-standing involvement in Bar politics could not justify irregularities in enrolment.

“A man should know when to leave politics. He can give consultation services sitting at home. Not a legal consultant. Just a consultant,” the Bench observed.

During the hearing, counsel also argued that the suspension order had been passed by the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which did not possess the authority to impose a final punishment.

However, the Court observed that similar approaches had been adopted by the Madras High Court too.

“Yes. The Madras High Court has taken over role of bar council in appropriate cases. Let us treat it like that.” the Court said.

The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to pursue remedies before the Bar Council of India (BCI).

Accepting the request, the Court dismissed the plea as withdrawn and directed the BCI to take an appropriate decision within four months.

The case traces back to an anonymous complaint received by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana alleging discrepancies in the lawyer’s date of birth furnished at the time of his enrolment in 2006.

During verification of records, the Enrolment Committee examined documents relating to his family, including details of his children, who were themselves enrolled as advocates in subsequent years.

The records showed that both children were recorded as having been born in 1986, with a gap of only two months between their dates of birth.

The birth dates recorded in those documents revealed serious inconsistencies when compared with the lawyer’s declared age, suggesting that if his stated age was accepted, he would have been only about 12 years old when his children were born.

During the verification process, the Enrolment Committee also found that a 10+2 certificate produced by him had been issued by an unrecognised board. He was directed to appear before the Enrolment Committee along with supporting documents, but initially failed to comply with the notice issued to him.

Based on these discrepancies, the Enrolment Committee concluded that he had allegedly disclosed a lower age at the time of enrolment to bypass a rule prohibiting the enrolment of individuals above 45 years.

His licence was consequently suspended and he was directed to surrender his enrolment certificate and identity card.

He challenged this action before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that the Enrolment Committee did not have the authority to suspend his licence and that only the Bar Council of India could take action in cases involving alleged misrepresentation at the time of enrolment.

The High Court, however, held that while the Enrolment Committee could not finally remove his name from the rolls, its order could be treated as a recommendation for a lawyer's removal along with an interim measure of suspension. It directed that the matter be referred to the Bar Council of India for a final decision.

Following this decision, he approached the Supreme Court

Noting the disinterest of the top Court in entertaining the petition, he eventually withdrew it yesterday to pursue his remedy before the BCI.

[Read Live Coverage]