Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Non -Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No .294 of2007
ANAND KUMAR SHARMA .... Appellant
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY & ANOTHER ….Respondents
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL No._2426-2427 of 2019
[ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)…6383-6384/2019
CC Nos. 10531 - 10532 of 2013]
ANAND KUMAR SHARMA .... Appellant
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN ETC. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)..CC Nos. 10531 - 10532 of
2013.
1. The Appellant 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
1
was permitted by the Bar Council of India on 27th May, 1989.
The Bar Council of Rajasthan received a complaint
that the Appellant’s enrolment in the State of Himachal
Pradesh was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant
material. The enrolment of the Appellant was cancelled on
6
th November, 1995 by the Bar Council of India. The
said order was affirmed by this Court as the Special Leave
Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on 5th August,
1996.
2. Thereafter, the Appellant applied for enrolment as an
advocate seeking exemption from training of one year in
view of his experience as an advocate earlier. He
approached the High Court of Rajasthan seeking a direction
to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to decide his application for
exemption from training. The said Writ Petition was
dismissed by a learned Single Judge by holding that the
Appellant was not entitled for enrolment. In the Appeal filed
against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, a
Division Bench directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to
consider the application filed by the Appellant without being
influenced by the observations made by the learned Single
Judge.
2
3. The Bar Council of Rajasthan dismissed the application
of the Appellant for enrolment on 16th January, 2000 and
referred the matter for confirmation of the Bar Council of
India. The Bar Council of India confirmed the
order passed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan on 16th
January, 2000.
4. The Appellant filed yet another application for
enrolment as an advocate before the Bar Council of
Rajasthan which was rejected on 29th June, 2003. The Bar
Council of India confirmed the order of 29th June, 2003 by its
resolution dated 3rd January, 2004.
5. The Appellant made another attempt for enrolment by
filing an application before the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
Initially, the said application was rejected on the ground that
the Appellant cannot be admitted as an advocate since he
has crossed the age of 45 years in view of Rule 1-A of the
Enrollment Rules, Bar Council of Rajasthan framed under
Section 28 (1) (d) read with Section 24 (1) (e) of the
Advocates Act, 1961. The said Rule was struck down by the
High Court of Rajasthan by judgment dated 19th August,
2008. Taking into account the earlier order dated 16th
January, 2000 by which the application for enrolment filed
3
by Appellant was rejected, the Bar Council of Rajasthan
refused to enroll the Appellant as an advocate by the order
dated 14th July, 2012. The order dated 14th July,
2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan was affirmed by the
Bar Council of India on 15th September, 2012.
6. C.A. 294 of 2007 is filed by the Appellant challenging
the order dated 29.06.2003 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan
and the consequential orders dated 02.01.2004 of the Bar
Council of India and the order dated 18.03.2004 of the Bar
Council of Rajasthan. The legality of the orders dated 14th
July, 2012 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan affirmed by the
Bar Council of India on 15th September,
2012 is subject matter of Special Leave Petitions (Civil)… CC
Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013.
7. The Appellant is a qualified medical doctor who was
appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh. In the affidavit filed in
Special Leave Petitions (Civil)..CC Nos. 10531-10532 of
2013, the Appellant stated that a FIR
registered against him at Police Station Dhambola on 15th
April, 1988. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody.
He further stated that he was absent from service without
obtaining leave for which reason his services were
4
terminated by the Director. The Appellant has also referred
to his conviction under Section 419 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 by the Judicial Magistrate on 7th January, 1988.
He has also filed the judgment of the Sessions Judge,
Dungarpur, Rajasthan by which his appeal against the
conviction under Section 419 IPC was allowed. 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 a criminal
case. 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 exercise of this power that the
enrollment of the Appellant was cancelled. The first
order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his
enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court.
The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount
to an abuse of process. The Appellant would be better
advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to
5
his enrollment as Advocate. The orders impugned in the
Appeals do not suffer from any infirmity and are upheld.
8. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly.
..................................J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
..................................J.
[ M.R. SHAH]
New Delhi,
March 01, 2019.
6
