Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Joginder Singh

    Uploaded by

    Hridya R Nair
    The appellant, an advocate, had his name removed from the roll of advocates by the Bar Council of India for concealing a previous conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude when applying for enrollment. The appellant challenged this in court. The court upheld the Bar Council's order, finding that concealing such a conviction during enrollment was a misrepresentation under the Advocates Act, and that lawyers are held to high standards of honesty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Joginder Singh

    Uploaded by

    Hridya R Nair
    2K views11 pages
    The appellant, an advocate, had his name removed from the roll of advocates by the Bar Council of India for concealing a previous conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude when applying for enrollment. The appellant challenged this in court. The court upheld the Bar Council's order, finding that concealing such a conviction during enrollment was a misrepresentation under the Advocates Act, and that lawyers are held to high standards of honesty.

    Original Title

    JOGINDER SINGH

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant, an advocate, had his name removed from the roll of advocates by the Bar Council of India for concealing a previous conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude when applying for enrollment. The appellant challenged this in court. The court upheld the Bar Council's order, finding that concealing such a conviction during enrollment was a misrepresentation under the Advocates Act, and that lawyers are held to high standards of honesty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    2K views11 pages

    Joginder Singh

    Uploaded by

    Hridya R Nair
    The appellant, an advocate, had his name removed from the roll of advocates by the Bar Council of India for concealing a previous conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude when applying for enrollment. The appellant challenged this in court. The court upheld the Bar Council's order, finding that concealing such a conviction during enrollment was a misrepresentation under the Advocates Act, and that lawyers are held to high standards of honesty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 11

    JOGINDER SINGH

    V.
    BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
    • Citation: AIR 1975 Delhi 192
    • Jurisdiction : Delhi High Court
    • Case Decided On : October 17, 1974
    • Judges : Justice T. P. S. Chawla
    • Legal Provisions Involved : Advocates Act of 1961, Section 24A, 26(1).
    FACTS OF THE CASE
    • The appellant was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and was
    practicing there.
    • After few years he applied to Bar Council of India for transfer of his name from the roll
    of U.P. to the Bar Council of Delhi, which was allowed in October 1963.
    • On January 12, 1965, the B.C.I. notified the appellant that when he had applied for
    enrolment to the Bar Council of U.P., he concealed the fact of previously being
    convicted of offences related to moral turpitude.
    • This concealment of fact is considered misrepresentation and fraud within the ambit of
    Section 26(1) of the Act, and thus his name was removed.
    • The appellant filed his written statement within three weeks of the date on which he
    received the notice, and was informed that his defense would be considered by them, on a
    date to be notified to him when he could appear in person or by an Advocate.
    • The appellant and his counsel appeared and pleaded for the postponement of the hearing
    but they interrogated him and convicted him under Section 473 Indian Penal Code.
    • The appellant then filed a suit in the court seeking declarations that the orders made by
    the Bar Council of India on April 11, 1965 were null being unconstitutional, ultra vires,
    without jurisdiction and non-binding.
    ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
    I. Whether the advocate had got his enrolment by fraud or misrepresentation?
    II. Whether the appellant was at this point bound to specify that had he had been
    indicted for offenses?
    ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
    Plaintiff:
    The plaintiff contended that his right had been encroached in two ways :-
    • Where he had not been shown the fourth page of his application for enrolment and had
    hence been biased in his defense;
    • At the meeting on April 11, 1965 the Bar Council had permitted no time to him and his
    counsel to contend the case. The plaintiff also contended that the orders made by the Bar
    Council of India on April 11, 1965 were null void, unconstitutional, ultra vires, without
    jurisdiction and non -binding.
    Defendant:
    • The Bar Council of India in that said application for enrolment claimed that the plaintiff
    had concealed the fact of him having been previously convicted of offences involving
    moral turpitude, that by such concealment of an essential fact he obtained his enrolment,
    and whereas it appears to the Council that this concealment constitutes misrepresentation
    and fraud within the meaning of the provision to Section 26(1) of the said Act, and
    whereas the appellant's name is liable to be removed from the roll of advocates under the
    said section of the mentioned Act.
    LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED
    1. 24A. Disqualification for enrolment.-
    No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll-
    a) convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; or
    b) convicted on an offence under the provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955
    or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989;
    or
    c) convicted of contempt of court subject to any order or decision of court.
    d) dismissed or removed from service or employment under the Union or the State or its
    undertakings or any statutory body or Corporation.
    2. Section 26(1) of The Advocates Act 1961
    • A State Bar Council should refer all the application for admission as an advocate to its
    enrolment committee.
    • The committee shall subjected to the provisions contained in sub section 2 and 3 and also to
    any direction issued by the council in writing dispose of the application in the prescribed
    manner.
    • The committee can also if it is satisfied that any person has got his name entered on the roll
    of advocate by misrepresentation as to any fact or by fraud or undue influence, remove the
    name from the roll after giving that person an opportunity of being heard.
    3. Section 473 I.P.C.
    If someone makes or counterfeits a seal, plate, or other instrument to commit forgery
    (punishable under any section of this Chapter except section 467), or possesses such a
    counterfeit instrument knowing its purpose, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to
    seven years and may also be fined.
    JUDGEMENT
    • Given the high standards expected of those in the legal profession, it would
    definitely be a fraud/misrepresentation if the concerned advocate does not disclose
    the fact of his previous conviction, especially those involving moral turpitude as
    they help ascertain the character of a man. (Violation of Rule 43 of the BCI Rules-
    Chapter II).
    • The advocate being aggrieved by the order of the bar council appealed in the
    Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court was of the opinion that there was no
    interference required in the said matter as the order passed by the bar council was
    in accordance with the evidence, facts and circumstances. Thus, the appeal was
    rejected and the order of the disciplinary committee was upheld.
    ANALYSIS
    • We all know that lawyers are not supposed to lie and in this instant case, the important issue
    that has been highlighted, is if the appellants had concealed facts in violation of Section
    24A and Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act of 1961.
    • The falsification of facts was considered deception and fraud under Section 26(1) of the
    Act which was a breach of duty, and his name was therefore expunged which could be
    justified given the legal profession rightly demands high standards of honesty and integrity
    from the lawyers and it is also the responsibility of the Bar Council of India to regulate the
    conduct of an advocate.
    • Since advocates are the pillars of Judiciary, they not only need to abide by the Constitution
    but also have a responsibility to rightfully represent their client despite all problems,
    without holding any malice or ill will and certainly not misrepresenting their own identity.
    • Judiciary can only function effectively when each of its members carry out their functions
    and responsibilities properly with due diligence, honesty and sincerity.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy