Doctor’s repeated attempts to enrol at the Bar rebuffed by Supreme Court

A doctor whose persistent attempts to enrol at the Bar were turned down by Bar Councils due to suppression of material facts, has now received a final word from the Supreme Court – don’t pursue it..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and MR Shah was hearing a case filed by one Anand Kumar Sharma (Appellant), a doctor who had served as Medical Officer with the Government of Himachal Pradesh..Sharma was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988. He applied for transfer of his enrolment to the State of Rajasthan which was permitted by the Bar Council of India in 1989..Subsequently, the Bar Council of Rajasthan received a complaint that Sharma’s enrolment in the State of Himachal Pradesh was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant material. Pursuant to the same, the enrolment of Sharma was cancelled on November 6, 1995 by the Bar Council of India..The said order was affirmed by the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on August 5, 1996..Subsequently, Sharma made three more attempts to enrol with the State of Rajasthan. All the three were rejected by the State Bar Council and affirmed by Bar Council of India. After the third rejection, he approached the Supreme Court in appeal..The Court noted that Sharma is a qualified medical doctor who was appointed as a Medical Officer on a contract basis by the Government of Himachal Pradesh..In April 1988, an FIR was registered against him and he was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He was convicted under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate. The same was, however, subsequently overturned by the Sessions Judge..The suppression that was alleged against the Appellant at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh pertains to his being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in the criminal case..The Court held that subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of the Appellant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation. It is in the exercise of this power that the enrolment of the Appellant was cancelled. The first order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by Supreme Court, the Bench noted..The Court, however, did not stop there. It observed that the repeated attempts made by Sharma to get himself enrolled at the Bar amounts to “abuse of process”..The Appellant would be better advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to his enrolment as Advocate, the Court cautioned before dismissing the appeal..Read the judgment below..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.