Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India & Anr

DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI 1. The petitioner, who is a practising advocate, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to seek two distinct reliefs. The first of them is for challenging an office order dated 1 November 2022 of the Bar Council of India to all the State Bar Councils, the purport of which (according to the petitioner) was to interdict the process of verificati on of advocates who are enrolled with the State Bar Councils for scr utinizing the genuineness of their degrees and enrollments. The second issu e deals with the method of co-opting members of the State Bar Councils to fill up casual vacancies. 2. We have heard Mr Anand Nandan, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India with Mr Apurba Kumar Sharma. 3. In 2015, the Bar Council of India notified the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 20151. The process of verification of the certificates and pla ce of practice 1 “2015 Rules” AJAY SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. commenced with efforts by the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India. 4. The 2015 Rules were challenged before several High Courts, including the High Court of Delhi. A Transfer Petition was ins tituted before this Court by the Bar Council of India. The proceedings pending before diverse High Courts were transferred to this Court in Transferred Case (Civil) No 126 of 2015. 5. The Bar Council of India constituted a High Powe red Committee for monitoring the process of verification which was headed by a former Judge of the Supreme Court, two former Judges of the High Courts and three members of the Bar Council of India. 6. The process of verification encountered difficulties as a result of the charges which were demanded by the Universities for verification of the educational certificates of the advocates. On 1 March 2017, a two- Judge Bench of this Court issued a direction to all the Universities not to demand charges for verification of educational certificates. 7. The process of verification has consumed time as the number of advocates which stood at 16 lakh, at the material time, is e stimated to be almost 25.70 lakh, at the present. The counter affidavit which has been filed by the Bar Council of India indicates the State-wise position in regard to verification of enrolled advocates. The tabulated statement is produced below: 509 8. The above statement indicates that out of 20.57 lakh advocates, about 7.55 lakh forms were received for the purpose of verifi cation. Senior advocates and advocates-on-record were only required to i ssue a declaration and, accordingly, 1.99 lakh declarations have been received. The total number of forms received is, thus, 9.22 lakhs, as indicated in the above table. 9. The above table indicates that a majority of advocates enrolled with the State Bar Councils have not submitted their verification forms. The Bar Council of India apprehends that many advocates who have not submitted their forms for verification are persons who are not qualified or are “in possession of fake degrees”. The Bar Council of I ndia has submitted and, with justification, that this class of persons, without the possession of qualifications required for law practice, is known to enter upon the arena of courts for extraneous purposes, including the disruption of work. The Bar Council of India is justified in asserting that such persons have to be identified and weeded out from the list of advocates enrolled with the Bar Councils. 10. The due verification of advocates who are enrolled with the State Bar Councils, is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice. Persons who profess to be lawyers, but do not either have the educational qualifications or degree c ertificates on the basis of which they could have lawfully granted entry to the Bar, pose a grave danger to the administration of justice to citizens. Hence, it is the duty of every genuine advocate of the country to ensure that they AJAY SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] cooperate with the Bar Council of India which is seeking to ensure that the certificates of practice are duly verified, together with the underlying educational degree certificates. Unless this exerci se is carried out periodically, there is a danger that the administration of justice would be under a serious cloud. The written submission which has been placed on the record by the Bar Council of India indicates that several such persons have been elected to State Bar Councils and some pe rsons have thereafter occupied judicial office in the district judiciary as well. 11. The communication which was issued by the Bar Council of India on 1 November 2022 took exception to the fact that the Bar Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh had started the process of verification in a hurried manner without verifying the genuineness and validi ty of the educational certificates and degrees of advocates. The le tter adverts to the fact that certificates of practice were being issued b y the State Bar Council. Hence, all State Bar Councils were directed not to proceed with the process of verification till further orders. However, it was clarified that the State Bar Councils which are verifying the genui neness and validity of degree certificates shall continue to do so. 12. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Counsel and the Chairperson of the Bar Council of India, has clarified, during the course of the submission, that the intent of the letter dated 1 Nove mber 2022 was not to direct the cessation of the process of verification, but only to ensure that the process of verification was not carried out merely on the basis of the certificates of practice issued by the Sta te Bar Council without verifying the genuineness and validity of degree certificates. 13. Having regard to the larger dimensions of this matter and the direct impact which the enrollment of fake degree holders and other persons who are not found to be in possession of the qualifications required for entry into the Bar have on the administration of justice, we accede to the suggestion of the Bar Council of India that a High Powered Committee should be constituted by this Court to monitor the process of verification. In our view, such a High Powered Committee should be chair ed by a former Judge of this Court and its members should consist of: (i) two Judges of the High Court; (ii) two senior advocates; and (iii) three members of the Bar Council of India. The above suggestion has been accepted by the Bar Council of India. 511 14. We accordingly direct that the Committee shall consist of the following persons: (i) Mr Justice Deepak Gupta, former Judge of the Suprem e Court; (ii) Mr Justice Arun Tandon, former Judge of the High Co urt of Judicature at Allahabad; (iii) Mr Justice Rajendra Menon, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi; (iv) Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate; and (v) Mr Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate. The Bar Council of India shall be at liberty to nominate t hree members. The Secretary to the Bar Council of India shall be the nodal officer to facilitate all logistical assistance to be rendered to the members of the Committee. The honorarium payable to the members of the Committee shall be fixed by the Chairperson in consultati on with the Bar Council of India. 15. The Committee constituted by this Court is empowered t o monitor the process of verification. The Committee would be at liberty to issue necessary guidelines and directions to ensure that the process of verification of advocates is duly carried out. The process of verification shall encompass both the educational degree certific ates and the certificates of enrollment of the advocates concerned. All State Bar Councils shall comply with the directions of the Committee and report compliance. 16. All Universities and Examination Boards shall verify the genuineness of the educational certificates without charging any fee for the purpose of verification. The requisitions made by the Bar Councils shall be carried out without undue delay and the reports of the verification shall be submitted expeditiously. 17. We request the Committee to commence work at its ear ly convenience by convening the first meeting on a mutually conve nient date and time. A status report shall be submitted before this Court by 31 August 2023 on the process which is being carried out. AJAY SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI] 18. We clarify that the present order for constituting the Committee in order to effectuate the process of verification shall not b e in and of itself construed as a direction for extending the existing terms of the Bar Councils. Ankit Gyan Directions issued. (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)