This page is an account of trying to bring G.A.Srikante Gowda, a High Court advocate, to book according to procedure established by law. And consequently failing miserably at it. How does one get away practising as an advocate, with what is ex facie a fake law degree? Moreover for nearly 4 decades and that too in the High Court of Karnataka? As well as become empanelled by the Central Government?
My sister and I have pursued this for nearly 4 years with every forum possible. The refusal of any forum to verify his law degree is testament to how powerfully connected this man is. And a testament to the refusal by institutions to take fake advocates seriously.
Sara Ahmed says in her book ‘Complaint‘ – to make a complaint is to discover how institutions work and who they work for. This is the learning unravelled here.
Summary
In 2019 we discovered that G.A.Srikante Gowda is the son of both Appaiah Gowda in Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) records and the son of D.Venkategowda in two of his voter id’s (yes two!)
In late 2019 my sister made an application with KSBC under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Herein she sought Srikante Gowda’s enrolment and verification forms along with documents. His enrolment documents were not provided because they were “old”.
She consequently filed an appeal in mid-2020 with the Karnataka Information Commission(KIC) (KIC-7733/APL/2020). KSBC provided her the degree convocation certificate. Since the certificate is ex facie fake, in mid-2021, my sister filed a complaint, with the Bar Council of India (BCI). This was against both G.A.Srikante Gowda for practising with a fake law degree and against KSBC for shielding a fake lawyer.
KIC subsequently dismissed the appeal. Hence my sister filed Writ Petition No.6906 of 2022 in the High Court of Karnataka assailing the same.
In late 2022 my sister made an application under the Right to Information Act with the BCI seeking the status of her complaint against G.A.Srikante Gowda. BCI replied to this stating that the complaint was untraceable.
In mid-2023 we filed Writ Petition No.1172 of 2023 in the Supreme Court of India. Here we prayed for a direction to Bar Council of India to institute removal proceedings against Srikante Gowda. The Supreme Court disposed the said Writ Petition and told us to approach the High Court of Karnataka.
Voter id details of G.A.Srikante Gowda wherein his father’s name is mentioned as Venkate Gowda
Documents received from Karnataka State Bar Council concerning G.A.Srikante Gowda
Letter from Karnataka State Bar Council concerning the above and refusal to provide G.A.Srikante Gowda’s enrolment application form.
Why are the above documents problematic?
The Public Information Officer (PIO), Karnataka State Bar Council did not certify the SSLC marks card, the PUC marks card and the Degree convocation certificate. This they stated was because they did not have it in their possession. Since according to Resolution No.140/19 they had destroyed all enrollment application forms.
A look at the Supreme Court orders in Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. show that there was a mandate to collect all degree certificates of all advocates for verification. The Supreme Court in Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India & Anr. has now extended verification to not only include the degree certificates but also the certificates of enrollment.
The matter is currently subjudice in Writ Petition No.6906 of 2022 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Read about problems my sister had getting this even listed here.
Bar Verification application form of G.A.Srikante Gowda
Note: The unredacted version of the above document is available here
Why are the above documents problematic?
Supreme court orders dated 23.08.2017 in Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. clearly states that those advocates whose verification forms were defective would not be included on the electoral rolls. G.A.Srikante Gowda’s name is on the advocates’ electoral roll for Bengaluru at Serial No.985 on Page 198/2416.
The verification form, dated 22.04.2016, that you see above is defective under Rules 8 and 13 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. G.A.Srikante Gowda’s passport photo is not attested to by the President/Secretary of the Bar Association of which he is a member or by any duly authorized member of the Karnataka State Bar Council; He is not in advocate robes; His verification form is not accompanied with a Certificate in Form A, Column III issued by the President/Secretary of the Bar Association of which he is a member certifying that he is a bona fide member or by any duly authorized member of the Karnataka State Bar Council and the requisite information regarding the law college that G.A.Srikante Gowda attended is missing.
Central Government Panel Counsel
G.A.Srikante Gowda has been empanelled as a legal counsel for the Central Government for High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. RTI Applications made seeking information on documents pertaining to G.A.Srikante Gowda’s appointment as panel counsel remained unanswered.
Central Information Commission Second Appeal against PIO, Bar Council of India
On 19.08.2022 my sister filed an application under S.6 of The Right to Information Act 2005 with the Public Information Officer of Bar Council of India requesting information on the status of her complaint. This pertained to the complaint filed against G.A.Srikante Gowda and Karnataka State Bar Council in 2021. The RTI decision stated that her complaint dated 31.07.2021 being very old was untraceable and that a complaint against an advocate had to be filed at the concerned Bar Council where the said advocate was enrolled. This is even though Proviso to S.26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 states otherwise.
There was no response on the first appeal against the RTI decision. Hence my sister filed a Second Appeal, dated 06.02.2023, with the Central Information Commission against the Bar Council of India. She then received a communique from the Bar Council of India. They have transferred the second appeal to the Karnataka State Bar Council. Apparently unlike what the RTI Act states, the Bar Council of India believes it can transfer second appeals to another body! Obviously the Second Appeal numbered as CIC/BCOIN/A/2023/107038 will never be listed!
Writ Petition No.1172/2023.
Supreme Court of India.
I along with my sister and mother filed Writ Petition No.1172 of 2023 in the Supreme Court of India seeking a direction to the Bar Council of India to institute removal proceedings against G.A.Srikante Gowda. We also sought for a writ of mandamus against G.A.Srikante Gowda barring him from practising in any court in India. The Supreme Court asked us to approach the High Court of Karnataka. Here is the order: