In a significant development, the Delhi High Court, on December 9, 2024, stayed the Bar Council of India's (BCI) resolution dated December 7, 2024, which sought to initiate a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the authenticity of the law degree of Sanjeev Nasiar, Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, and directed his removal from the position. The court observed that the resolution was prima facie violative of statutory safeguards under Section 48A(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and inconsistent with the procedural requirements for removing elected office-bearers under the Bar Council of Delhi’s Rules.

BACKGROUND

The controversy surrounding Nasiar’s credentials emerged from allegations of forgery concerning his LL.B. (Hons.) degree awarded by Devi Ahilya University, Indore, in 1988. The Bar Council of India constituted a sub-committee to investigate the matter, which reportedly found discrepancies in the degree records. Acting on the sub-committee’s findings, the BCI passed the impugned resolution and directed the CBI to investigate the matter further.

Nasiar, through his counsel, challenged the resolution, asserting that the BCI’s actions were procedurally flawed and exceeded its statutory authority. It was argued that the BCI acted without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present his case, as mandated under Section 48A(2) of the Advocates Act.

COURT'S OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the impugned resolution not only prejudiced Nasiar's rights but also failed to comply with procedural safeguards. The court noted that the Bar Council of India had violated Section 48A(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates that no order adversely affecting a person should be passed without giving them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The lack of such an opportunity in this case rendered the BCI’s resolution prima facie invalid.

The court further highlighted that the BCI's actions were premature and selectively targeted. While the sub-committee’s findings raised questions about the university’s processes, these issues extended beyond the petitioner and potentially affected other individuals with similar degrees awarded by the university. However, the BCI chose to single out Nasiar without initiating any broader inquiry, thus raising concerns about fairness and consistency.

Another significant observation pertained to the procedural requirements for removing elected office-bearers. The Bar Council of Delhi's Rule 36A explicitly requires a no-confidence resolution, supported by at least two-thirds of the voting members, to remove a Vice-Chairman. The BCI bypassed this mandatory procedure, undermining the autonomy of the state bar council and violating the principle of internal self-governance enshrined in the Advocates Act, 1961.

The court also criticized the BCI for exceeding its jurisdiction by directing a CBI investigation into the petitioner’s degree. Under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the power to initiate a CBI investigation rests solely with the Central or State Government, not with the BCI. This overreach further undermined the validity of the impugned resolution.

INTERIM RELIEF

Granting interim relief to Nasiar, the court stayed the BCI’s resolution, thereby halting the CBI investigation and allowing Nasiar to continue as Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 21, 2025.

Cause Title: Sanjeev Nasiar V/S Bar Council of India & Anr.

Case No: WP(C) 17039/2024

Date: December-09-2024

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

[Read/Download order]