Supreme Court scolds man for abusing process by repeated attempt for enrollment as Advocate when it was cancelled for suppression of facts
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2809 (2019) (03) SC
The Appellant who was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council, applied for transfer of his enrollment to other State which was permitted by the Bar Council of India.
However, the State Bar Council received a complaint that the Appellant’s enrolment was obtained by suppression of facts and relevant material.
The alleged suppression by the Appellant at the time of original enrolment in the State Bar Council pertained to his being in Government service and involvement in a criminal case under Section 419 IPC.
Subsequently, the enrolment of the Appellant was cancelled by the Bar Council of India.
The said order was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant.
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 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court seeking a direction to the State Bar Council to decide his application for exemption from training.
The said Writ Petition was dismissed by a Single Judge by holding that the Appellant was not entitled for enrolment. In the Appeal filed against the said judgment, the Division Bench directed the Bar Council to consider the application filed by the Appellant.
The State Bar Council dismissed the application of the Appellant for enrolment and referred the matter for confirmation of the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India confirmed the order passed by the State Bar Council.
Three years later, the Appellant filed yet another application for enrolment as an advocate before the State Bar Council which met the same fate.
Not stopped by the rejection, the Appellant filed one more application before the State Bar Council for enrolment. Initially, the said application was rejected on the ground that the Appellant could not be admitted as an advocate since he had crossed the age of 45 years in view of State Bar Council Rule framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 which came to be struck down by the High Court. However in view of its earlier order, the State Bar Council refused to enroll the Appellant as an advocate. This order of the State Bar Council was one more time affirmed by the Bar Council of India.
The instant appeal was filed by the Appellant challenging the orders of the State Bar Council.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of the Appellant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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 was in exercise of this power that the enrollment of the Appellant was cancelled.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the first order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court by way of dismissal of his SLP. The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amounted to an abuse of process.
The Appellant was advised not to indulge in pursuing the matter pertaining to his enrollment as Advocate.
The Appeal was dismissed accordingly.