What is the stand of High Courts on fake advocates? The High Courts of any State play an extremely crucial rule in stemming the scourge of fake advocates. This is so because of their inherent supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since this gives them power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction. Three recent judgments by High Courts are of specific importance here. The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Sessy Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors. and the Madras High Court’s judgments in S. Maria Saranya v. M.J. Maria Jareen & Ors and D.Shanthi v. The State.
The High Court of Madras on Fake Advocates
D.Shanthi v. The State
H.C.P.No.728 of 2022 decided on 28.07.2022
Coram: Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan and Mr.Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
A Bench of the High Court of Madras did something extraordinary, something so absolutely commendable against a fake advocate. Because what they did here was deliver justice! This should set a precedent for other High Courts to follow.
The Bench of Justice S.Vaidyanathan and Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira were hearing a Habeas Corpus Petition. Therein it was brought to their notice that Respondent No.4 in the said Petition could be a fake advocate. The advocate consequently provided his degree certificate. To which the Bench retorted that “even a naked eye would be able to establish that it is a fake one.” They following due process asked the University to ascertain the genuineness of the degree certificate. Thereafter the University informed them that it was fake.
As a result they directed the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police to register a case, arrest the fake advocate and conduct an investigation. The Court also directed publishing of his photograph in leading English and Tamil dailies. With the intention of reaching out to others the fake advocate might have deceived. The Court also directed The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct an enquiry.
“This is indeed a case requiring registration of a criminal case and appropriate action needs to be taken against persons, who are involved in the fabrication of documents. Cases in the nature of job racketing and creation of false documents have been mushrooming now-a-days and such persons involved in the offences should be crushed with iron hands and they shall not be allowed to go scot-free.”
S. Maria Saranya v. M.J. Maria Jareen & Ors
Crl.O.P. No.21454 of 2016 decided on 06.11.2017
Coram: Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan
Justice S.Vaidyanathan in this Petition laid down certain guidelines in this judgment. This was in order to inhibit fraud, fake advocates and filing of fake documents into courts. These included inter alia enforcement of Rule 8 (xiii) of the Appellate Side Rules (attestation of vakalathnamas by an advocate other than the one accepting it); Photograph of the advocate-on-record and the attesting advocate to be pasted on to the vakalathnamas; this to be accompanied by Bar enrolment certificate, Bar Council identity card and residential/office proof. The Justice also reiterated what is already available under Section 22.3 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of practice (Verification) Rules 2015
“24. All Courts/Tribunals in Tamil Nadu shall have the power to demand the Identity Card/Enrolment Certificate/Address proof of an Advocate, if it has doubt and even direct them to produce photostat copies of the same and Courts can refer it to the respective Bar Council for verification and if required, for necessary action.”
Sessy Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Bail Application No.5868 of 2021 decided on 17.09.2021
Coram: Mrs. Justice Shercy V
The Court was hearing a bail application made by Sessy Xavier. She had been charged with practising without a proper law degree through using another advocate’s enrolment. The Court subsequently dismissed the bail application. The reasons the High Court went into reveal the gravity of the offence. And this is something that other High Courts should hold in mind when confronted with fake advocates.
“In the instant case, prima facie, the petitioner has not only cheated the Bar Association, Alappuzha, the District judiciary of Alappuzha, the general public, but also the entire Judicial system….. Doubtless that the gravity of the offences alleged against her is grave and serious in nature. Offences alleged is all the more grave as she committed fraud on the Courts and Judicial system.
The allegations leveled against her are highly serious and sensitive having grave repercussions in the society. The illegal activities adopted by her that too before the court of law has to be dealt with an iron hand. If leniency is taken, just considering the fact that she is a young lady, it will be a shame for the whole Judicial system and would shake the confidence of the public in judicial system.”
Other Relevant Judgments
Delhi District Court
In The Court Of Sh. Babru Bhan vs Unknown decided on 21 January, 2016
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohd.Arshad Khan vs Bar Council Of India And Others decided on 15 July, 2019
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh vs Dr. Surendra Singh decided on 20 March, 1992
Madras High Court
S. Vasanthi @ Srimathi @ Srinidhi vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police decided on 29 November, 2002