MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Forgery at the Gate of the Legal Profession Cannot Be Tolerated: Bar Council of India Cancels Advocate’s Enrolment Over Fake LL.B. Degree, Orders Crackdown on Organised Collusion

20 November 2025 2:53 PM

By: sayum


“Enrolment obtained on the basis of forged qualifications is a fraud on the statutory body and the Advocates Act, and cannot be permitted to stand.”, In an extraordinary move signalling zero tolerance towards fraud within the legal profession, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has ordered the immediate removal of Mr. J. Vasanthan (Enrolment No. D/81/2023) from the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi, after it was conclusively established that he secured enrolment using a fake LL.B. degree and fabricated marksheets.

The decision, dated November 17, 2025, and publicly released through a Press Note on November 18, 2025, arises from Removal Proceeding No. 47/2025, and was taken following the submission of a damning report by a Sub Committee led by Hon’ble Mr. Apurba Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate and Chairman of the BCI Executive Committee, and Hon’ble Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma, Co-Chairman of the BCI.

The probe has revealed not only personal misconduct by the enrollee, but also systemic collusion involving insiders within the Bar Council of Delhi, particularly a long-serving staff member, as well as intermediaries and touts, prompting urgent and widespread disciplinary directives from the Bar Council of India.

“An Organised Criminal Network May Be Operating to Pollute the Advocate Roll” — BCI Flags Structural Breach

The case was initiated following a reference by the Bar Council of Delhi under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, after routine verification exposed the forged nature of the academic credentials submitted by Mr. Vasanthan.

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, through its official communication dated June 26, 2025, unequivocally confirmed that the LL.B. degree and marksheet submitted were not genuine. Upon issuance of a show-cause notice, the advocate initially remained silent, but eventually, in a reply dated November 12, 2025, he admitted that his enrolment was secured through touts, with fabricated documents and the alleged involvement of a Bar Council staffer.

BCI’s investigation has found that forged degrees were allegedly generated in collusion with Bar Council insiders and a known broker, Mr. Arbind Panchal, who is himself enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. The report describes the matter as “an exceptional case disclosing a grave abuse of the statutory enrolment process from within the system.”

“This matter does not merely disclose an individual instance of misrepresentation by an applicant, but a serious systemic breach involving the institutional machinery of enrolment itself.”

“Enrolment is Void and of No Legal Effect” — BCI Invokes Sections 24, 26, 26A, 35, 36, 48B and 49 of Advocates Act

Acting under its statutory mandate, the General Council of the BCI invoked a wide range of powers under the Advocates Act, 1961, and has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to:

  • Immediately remove Mr. J. Vasanthan’s name from the State Roll;
  • Declare his enrolment void and legally non-existent from inception;
  • Issue a public notification to that effect for awareness.

The decision was reached after the Sub Committee found overwhelming material proving the fraudulent nature of the enrolment and categorically stated:

“Enrolment obtained on the basis of forged educational qualifications and dishonest non-disclosure constitutes a fraud on the statutory body and the Advocates Act, 1961.”

Staff Member Dismissed, Advocates Who Issued Character Certificates Under Scrutiny

The press release further reveals that the Bar Council of Delhi, in an emergency meeting of its Special Committee held on November 17, 2025, has removed Mr. Jagdish, a staff member of the Council, from service. He had been working on extension after superannuation in 2024. His removal is without prejudice to future civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

The BCI has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take strict and exemplary action not only against Mr. Jagdish but also:

  • Mr. Arbind Panchal, the enrolled advocate alleged to be the main intermediary;
  • Any other insiders or staff complicit in the fraud;
  • The two advocates who issued moral character certificates supporting Mr. Vasanthan’s application, after determining their role through due process.

“Such conduct, if established, amounts to a serious breach of trust reposed in the Bar Councils and warrants proportionate punitive and deterrent measures.”

“Immediate, Comprehensive and Time-Bound Inquiry Ordered”

Alarmed by the systemic nature of the fraud, the Bar Council of India has issued the following mandatory directives to the Bar Council of Delhi:

  • Conduct an immediate, comprehensive and time-bound inquiry into all suspicious or irregular enrolments, especially those linked to the named persons;
  • Identify and proceed against all individuals involved, including intermediaries, touts, and Bar Council staff;
  • Issue notices and take action against the advocates who issued character certificates in this case, and determine accountability.

The BCI has not ruled out the possibility of more such enrolments, stating:

“This may not be an isolated incident, and the possibility of similar illegal enrolments in the past by the same persons cannot be ruled out.”

“Polluting the Roll of Advocates is a Fraud on the Legal System” — BCI Warns of Zero Tolerance

Issuing a strong message to the legal community, the BCI reaffirmed its commitment to the integrity of the enrolment process, stating that any fraudulent entry into the profession, including through forged degrees, collusive practices or abuse of process, would be treated as “grave professional misconduct”.

“Integrity of enrolment is the foundation of the legal profession, and any dilution thereof shall not be tolerated.”

The Bar Council of India’s powers to regulate the profession, supervise enrolments and maintain discipline stem from the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, especially Part VI, Chapter II, which lays down the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette.

In conclusion, this action by the Bar Council of India marks a landmark moment in cleansing and safeguarding the sanctity of the legal profession, with institutional accountability and deterrence placed at the centre of enforcement.

Date of Press Release: November 18, 2025

 

Latest Legal News