In Shahnaz Fatma Vs. The Bihar State Bar Council (2024), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court ruled that "Bihar State Bar Council is directed to restore the name of the petitioner on the roll of the Advocates maintained by the Bar Council of India and also restore all consequent privileges and right to the petitioner as were available before passing the impugned orders/letters." In its 22 page long judgement, the Court observed that the orders of Bihar State Bar Council (BSBC), Bar Council of India (BCI)" are not sustainable in law."
The High Court set aside the order dated December 18, 2021 issued by the Bar Council of India and the notifications/orders dated January 3, 2022 and January 4, 2022 issued by the Bihar State Bar Council. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Jharkhand High Court to reach its conclusion.
The stance of both BSBC and BCI was found to be questionable. They did not comply with their own law and rules and cited irrelevant decision of the Patna High Court.
After having been enrolled as an Advocate with the Bihar State Bar Council, the petitioner went on to practice for 13 years and thereafter she was even elected as a Member of the Bihar State Bar Council in the year 2018 but after a lapse of more than 13 years, the respondents have vexatiously set in motion the process of removing the petitioner from the rolls of Advocate.
The judgement records that "According to the petitioner, she being a member of the Audit Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council observed certain irregularities in the finance matters and therefore, she raised questions on the same and certain other issues including corruption in the Bihar State Bar Council and as a retaliatory act, the members of Bihar State Bar Council passed a Resolution on 20.06.2021 to reconsider the decision/resolution dated 30.01.2008, by which the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate along with the recognition/validity of the Vidya Vinodini Certificate. As a consequence, the Removal Proceedings No.55 of 2021 was initiated against the petitioner. In the said proceeding, the petitioner filed her reply before the Bar Council of India contending therein that the Bihar Intermediate Council had granted recognition to Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad. In the said reply, the petitioner raised preliminary objections based on non-compliance of statutory provisions for institution of the proceedings before the Bar Council of India."
Her counsel submitted that the impugned recommendation and consequent orders are illegal on account of violation of several statutory provisions made under the Bar Council of Bihar Rules, 1962. He also submitted that Chapter-V and Rule-5 of the Bar Council of Bihar Rules, 1962 prescribe the degrees and certificates required for enrollment as an Advocate and this Rule provides a multi-stage mechanism to ensure that only duly qualified and eligible applicants are admitted to the rolls of Advocate, however there is no material on record to establish or substantiate that any inquiry or other efforts having been made by the Enrollment Committee of the State Bar Council or the State Bar Council itself on the enrollment application of the petitioner. The petitioner further establishes this by pointing towards the reply received vide letter No. 49/2020 dated 24.01.2020 by the Bihar State Bar Council under R.T.I. Act 2005 stating therein that no inquiry / verification were done in respect to the validity/recognition of her Vidya Vinodini certificate.
He further submitted that there has been a complete violation of the Rules by the Bihar State Bar Council, which have been framed by itself and if the Bihar State Bar Council did not follow its own Rules then it cannot make the petitioner suffer after 13 years. He pointed out that there is no provision either in the Governing statute or the Rules made thereunder for a reconsideration of the decision to grant enrollment. Moreover, no material has been brought on record to indicate misrepresentation as to an essential fact or fraud or undue influence which are sine qua non for invoking proviso to section 26(1) of the Act. The Bar Council of India never issued any notification, order or direction to the effect that Vidya Vinodini certificate cannot be considered for admission to the LL.B. course.
The petitioner brought on record the reply received from the Bihar School Examination Board dated 10.03.2022 and 04.06.2022 and the Press Release No.45/2003 and 40/2005 published in Hindustan newspaper on 15.11.2003 and 26.07.2005 respectively by the Bihar School Examination Board to illustrate and establish that the certificate of Vidya Vinodini was duly recognized and valid as late as 2005. She underlined that "there is no requirement to submit the matriculation certificate with the enrollment application, which renders the exercise undertaken by the State Council as wholly illegal, without jurisdiction."
Amit Shrivastava, the Amicus Curiae in the case submitted that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was limited to the production of the original certificates, save and except, the submission of the original academic/educational certificates, no other demand much less any other allegation was made in the show cause notice. The Bihar State Bar Council not only enrolled the petitioner but also allowed her to continue practice as an Advocate for more than thirteen years without any demur or hindrance. Furthermore, the proceedings dated 30.01.2008 of the Enrollment Committee was all along in the exclusive custody of the respondent no.1 and therefore the alleged unauthorised ‘striking-off’ cannot be ascribed to the petitioner.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University reported as AIR 1976 SC 376. The Court has has held as under:-
“We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the view of law taken by the learned Judges. In these circumstances, therefore, once the appellant was allowed to appear at the Examination in May 1973, the respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. This was not a case where on the undertaking given by a candidate for fulfilment of a specified condition a provisional admission was given by the University to appear at the examination which could be withdrawn at any moment on the non-fulfilment of the aforesaid condition. If this was the situation then the candidate himself would have contracted out of the statute which was for his benefit and the statute therefore would not have stood in the way of the University authorities in cancelling the candidature of the appellant.”
It also drew on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University & Ors. reported as 1990 AIR 1075. It also took note of the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Razia Tarannum and Another reported as 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2843.
The Jharkhand High Court has held that subsequent qualifications ought not to have been doubted by the authorities and similarly in the present case also, the qualification acquired by the petitioner after her matriculation have not been doubted or challenged by the Bihar State Bar Council and the requirement for enrollment as an Advocate is the Law degree from a Law College duly recognized by the Bar Council of India and therefore, at this point of time, the Bar Council of India cannot be allowed to doubt the matriculation degree of the petitioner and thereby cancel the registration of the petitioner as an Advocate under its Rules.
Patna High Court has concluded that "it is clear that the petitioner has acquired Intermediate degree, Graduation degree and Bachelor of Law (LL.B.) from recognized university which have not been challenged by the Bar Council of India."
The decision of the Bar Council of India is only based on the observation made by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of L.P.A. 455 of 2018 (Sangita Devi v. State & Ors.), which was only for the purposes of appointment of Anganbari Sevika. Justice Kumar inferred that it is not relevant to the present case.
Justice Kumar ordered that the enrollment of an advocate cannot be cancelled by doubting the validity of his /her matriculation certificate, if the testimonials of subsequent qualifications (graduate / LLB degree) are found valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment