The Supreme Court set up a ‘high-powered committee’ to issue necessary guidelines and directions to ensure that the process of verification of advocates is duly carried out.
—-
ON Monday, the Supreme Court observed that persons who professed to be lawyers but did not have proper educational qualifications for a lawful entry into the legal profession pose a grave danger to the administration of justice to citizens.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala made this comment while noting that it was the duty of every genuine advocate of the country to ensure that they cooperate with the Bar Council of India (BCI), which is seeking to ensure that advocates’ certificates of practice are duly verified, together with their underlying educational degree certificates.
The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Ajay Shankar Srivastava challenging an order of the BCI to all state Bar councils, the purport of which, according to Srivastava, was to interdict the process of verification of advocates who are enrolled with state Bar councils for scrutinising the genuineness of their degrees and enrolments.
Describing the verification exercise to be of utmost importance, the Bench constituted a ‘high-powered committee’, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta, to monitor the process of verification. The committee would also comprise former judge of the Allahabad High Court Justice Arun Tandon, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Justice Rajendra Menon, and senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh.
The Bench empowered the committee 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 certificates and the certificates of enrolment of the advocates concerned. All state Bar councils shall comply with the directions of the committee and report compliance,” the Bench directed.
It also directed all universities and examination boards to 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. We request the committee to commence work at its early convenience by convening the first meeting on a mutually convenient date and time. A status report shall be submitted before this court by August 31, 2023 on the process which is being carried out,” the Bench ordered.
The Bench said it felt compelled to pass the present order after noting that of the twenty lakh fifty-seven thousand registered advocates, only about seven lakh fifty-five thousand had submitted forms for the purpose of verification. Senior advocates and advocates-on-record were only required to issue a declaration and, accordingly, 1.99 lakh declarations have been received. The total number of forms received was, thus, 9.22 lakhs.
The data submitted by the BCI to the court revealed that in Delhi alone, a total of 117 advocates were found to be practising with fake degrees, followed by 14 in Andhra Pradesh and seven in Maharashtra and Goa.
The BCI apprehended that many advocates who had not submitted their forms for verification are persons who are not qualified or are “in possession of fake degrees”.
Commenting on the letter of the BCI, issued on November 1, 2022, senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, who is also the chairperson of the BCI, submitted that the intent of the letter 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 state Bar council without verifying the genuineness and validity of degree certificates.
In 2015, the BCI notified the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. The process of verification of certificates and place of practice commenced with joint efforts by state Bar councils and the BCI.
The 2015 Rules were challenged before several high courts, including the Delhi High Court. A transfer petition was instituted before the Supreme Court by the BCI. The Supreme Court transferred all the cases to itself.
The BCI had constituted a ‘high-powered 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 BCI. The process of verification encountered difficulties as a result of the charges which were demanded by the universities for verification of educational certificates of advocates. The fate of the BCI ‘high-powered committee’ is not clear.
On March 1, 2017, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court issued a direction to all universities not to demand charges for the verification of educational certificates. The process of verification has taken a lot of time, the court’s judgment noted, as the number of advocates, which had stood at 16 lakh at the material time, is estimated to be almost 25.7 lakh at present.
Click here to view the Supreme Court’s full judgment in Ajay Shankar Srivastava versus BCI & Anr.
