Chief Justice led Division Bench upholds decision of Justice Sandeep Kumar against Bar Council of India's order against Advocate Shahnaz Fatma

In Bihar State Bar Council, through its Officiating Secretary vs. Shahnaz Fatma & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy concluded:"We do not find any perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4448 of 2022 dated 05.07.2024. The appeal has no merits and is thus dismissed. The licence of the respondent no. 1, to practice law, be restored forthwith." The other five respondents were: Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India, through its Officiating Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Chairman, Bar Council of India and Prem Kumar Jha, Member Bihar State Bar Council. 

The 10-page long judgement records the version of Advocate Shahnaz Fatma. It States that Bihar State Bar Council members were annoyed by Shahnaz Fatma because she, as a member of the Audit Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council, had tried to expose the financial irregularities by the Council. As retaliatory act, the Bar Council had passed a resolution on 20.06.2021 to reconsider the resolution dated 30.01.2008, whereby Shahnaz Fatma, the respondent no. 1 was enrolled as an Advocate after recognizing the validity of the Vidya Vinodini certificate. It was only then that the Removal Proceeding No. 55 of 2021 was initiated against her. 

The Division Bench observed: "With the State Bar Council having permitted respondent no. 1 to practice for so many years, such issue could not have been stoked and that also when, as a member of the Bar Council (respondent no. 1)had tried to expose certain illegal activities. The action of the Bar Council, therefore, of initiating a disciplinary proceeding for her removal from the rolls of Advocate, does not appear to be free from bias."

The judgement referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and Ors.; 1990 AIR 1075, wherein it did not permit the University to raise objection to the eligibility of the student at the last stage, for sitting in the examination. 

It also recalled that similar decision was taken by the Jharkhand High Court in State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Razia Tarannum and Anr.; 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2843. 

Notably, High Court's single judge bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar had 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 Court found the stance of both BSBC and BCI to be questionable because they did not comply with their own law and rules. They cited irrelevant decisions of the High Court. 

Also read: Single Judge Bench of Patna High Court sets aside Bihar State Bar Council, Bar Council of India (BCI) orders, restores Advocate Shahnaz Fatma on the roll of BCI

The Division Bench recalled that Single Judge had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishnan vs. The Kurukshetra University ; AIR 1976 SC 376, in which it was held that before issuing admission card to a student to appear in the examination, it is the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the papers. Equally important would be the duty of the Head of the department before submitting the form to the University to ensure compliance with all requirements. If no care was taken to scrutinize the papers, the candidature of the student for appearing in the examination could not be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non-fulfillment of the requirements. 

Justice Sandeep Kumar had taken note of the fact that in the show-cause notice issued to the respondent by the Bar Council, she was only asked to produce the original academic/educational certificates. 

The Division Bench has underlined that in Chapter-V and Rule-5 of the Bar Council of Bihar Rules, 1962, the degrees and certificates required for enrollment as an Advocate has been provided. The Rules ensure a multi-stage mechanism to prevent any unqualified or ineligible applicant to be admitted to the rolls of Advocate.