Power to Enrol Includes Power to Regulate: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds State Bar Council’s Interim Suspension in Fraudulent Enrolment Case

“Proviso to Section 26 Cannot Be Read to Nullify State Bar Council’s Authority”, In a significant pronouncement clarifying the interplay between the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana held that the State Bar Council is not rendered powerless in cases of alleged fraudulent enrolment merely because the proviso to Section 26(1) empowers the Bar Council of India to remove a name from the roll.

The Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari treated the impugned suspension order as a recommendation for removal coupled with an interim suspension, and directed the State Bar Council to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India for final adjudication.

The ruling strikes a balance between regulatory authority and procedural safeguards, ensuring that alleged fraudulent enrolments are examined expeditiously while preventing indefinite suspension without final determination.

The petitioner, enrolled as an Advocate in 2006 with Enrolment No. P/159/2006, had been practicing at District Courts, Karnal and had held various positions in local Bar Associations. His daughter and son were also enrolled as Advocates in 2009 and 2010 respectively.

An anonymous complaint triggered scrutiny by the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana regarding discrepancies in the petitioner’s date of birth. As per records, the petitioner’s date of birth was 26.11.1973. However, his children were shown as born in 1986, leading the Committee to observe that, if the petitioner’s declared date of birth were accepted, he would have been approximately 12 years old at the time of their birth—raising “strong suspicion.”

Further, during proceedings, the petitioner produced a 10+2 certificate purportedly issued by the Board of Adult Education and Training, Delhi (Proadh Shiksha Sansthan), which upon verification was found to be issued by an unrecognized Board.

The Enrolment Committee, by order dated 01.10.2025, suspended the petitioner’s licence with immediate effect and directed surrender of his enrolment certificate and ID card for initiation of proceedings for termination.

Who Has the Power to Suspend or Remove?

The petitioner contended that under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, it is only the Bar Council of India (BCI) that is competent to remove a name from the roll in cases of enrolment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It was argued that the Enrolment Committee had no jurisdiction to suspend the licence.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the power to enrol necessarily includes the incidental power to regulate, and that the Enrolment Committee could examine the propriety of enrolment and pass interim prohibitory orders pending reference to the BCI.

The Court carefully examined Sections 26, 26A, 35, 36 and 42 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the scope of the proviso to Section 26(1), which states:

“Provided that the Bar Council of India may, if satisfied, either on a reference made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that any person has got his name entered on the roll of advocates by misrepresentation as to an essential fact or by fraud or undue influence, remove the name of such person from the roll of advocates after giving him an opportunity of being heard.”

Distinction Between Misconduct and Fraudulent Enrolment

The Bench clarified that proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent enrolment do not fall within the domain of disciplinary committees under Sections 35 and 36, which deal with professional misconduct.

The present matter, the Court observed, pertained not to professional misconduct but to alleged misrepresentation at the stage of enrolment. Therefore, the jurisdictional framework had to be examined under Section 26.

Interpretation of the Proviso: Enabling, Not Excluding

Relying heavily on the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Bhuvaneswari v. Bar Council of India (AIR 2018 Mad 139), and the Supreme Court’s observations in Sidhharth Viyas v. Ravinath Misra (2015) 2 SCC 701, the Court reiterated the settled principle that:

“A proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify or set at naught the real object of the main enactment.”

The High Court held that the proviso to Section 26(1) is an enabling provision empowering the Bar Council of India to remove a name from the roll, but it does not denude the State Bar Council of its inherent or incidental power to regulate its own roll.

The Bench observed that when the State Bar Council is vested with the power to admit a person as an advocate, such power necessarily includes the power to regulate and, in appropriate cases, recommend removal in cases of fraud. Importing Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, the Court noted that the authority to appoint or admit ordinarily includes the power to suspend or rescind.

The Court concluded that the State Bar Council, being the enrolling authority, is competent to pass interim prohibitory orders in cases of alleged fraudulent enrolment.

Nature of the Impugned Order and Equitable Directions

Importantly, the Court clarified that the impugned order did not itself remove the petitioner’s name from the roll but merely suspended his licence and directed initiation of termination proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court held:

“The impugned order is to be treated as a recommendation for removal with an interim measure of suspension of license.”

However, the Bench was conscious that prolonged suspension without final adjudication would cause hardship. Therefore, it directed the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana to immediately refer the matter to the Bar Council of India.

The petitioner was directed to surrender his enrolment certificate and ID card within one week. In case of failure, the State Bar Council was still required to refer the matter to the BCI within three weeks.

Significantly, the Court ordered that if the matter is not referred within the stipulated time, “the interim suspension of enrolment of the petitioner shall stand automatically revoked.”

The Bar Council of India was directed to take a final decision at the earliest upon reference.

The judgment clarifies that while the Bar Council of India holds the ultimate authority to remove a name from the roll in cases of fraudulent enrolment, the State Bar Council is not a mute spectator. The power to enrol carries with it the incidental authority to regulate, examine and even impose interim prohibitory measures where fraud is alleged.

At the same time, the Court ensured that regulatory power is exercised with accountability by mandating timely reference to the Bar Council of India and providing for automatic revocation of suspension in case of inaction.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Date of Decision: 19/02/2026