This page is an account of the journey undertaken to bring M.Amaranatha to book according to procedure established by law. Consequently the question arises – How does one get away practising as an advocate, with a fake law degree? The ongoing 4 year journey evidences the fact that both the courts and the statutory bodies take the problem of fake advocates lightly. Although I do wonder if this experience could be particular to us. Or not. What it does however reveal is the failure of processes both within the courts as well as the statutory bodies to address the problem of fake advocates.
Summary
Concerned by variations in the signature of M.Amaranatha, my sister made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking his Bar enrollment and Bar Verification forms. True to form, the signatures turned out to be different. Hence, leading to the “reasonable man” conclusion that M.Amaranatha had fraudulently enrolled/verified himself. This was 2019.
In 2020 I informed two Presiding officers I was in front of. I was told to take it up with the Karnataka State Bar Council. In 2021 I also made complaints to the administrative judges of the City Civil Court and the Bengaluru Rural court. These complaints were marked to the Administrative Justices of the High Court of Karnataka as well. But there has been no response.
Consequently in 2021 my sister filed a complaint with the Karnataka State Bar Council [DCE No.6/2021] against M.Amaranatha and 2 other lawyers [N.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy KAR/3540/2005 and K.N.Somaiah KAR/197/1984]. Dismissed because of lack of locus standi. Apparently according to KSBC’s logic you can only report a fake advocate if he is your fake advocate! She filed an appeal with the Bar Council of India. Subsequently dismissed on maintainability since it had to be a Revision Petition and not an Appeal.
Thereafter in 2023 my sister, me and my mother filed Writ Petition No.754 of 2023 in the Supreme Court of India. Disposed with directions requesting Bar Council of India to consider the appeal as a Revision Petition.
Hence my sister filed a Revision Petition which is currently pending consideration with the Bar Council of India. Unless of course it becomes ‘untraceable’!.
Documents Received from Karnataka State Bar Council concerning M.Amaranatha
Bar Enrollment Form and Bar Verification Form of M.Amaranatha [complete pdf versions] are available below:
Why are M.Amaranatha’s enrollment documents problematic?
M.Amaranatha’s enrollment application form has several discrepancies that evidence violation of procedure in obtaining the enrollment pointing to the fact that his enrollment is fraudulent. The printed form betrays evidence of tampering and fabrication. This is seen in the several typographical errors such as “NBangalore” for “Bangalore”, “emended” for “amended”, “except” for “accepted”, “The Act” for “The Advocates Act”; Karnataka State Bar Council’s logo is absent; several markings show the form has been manipulated as visible in question no’s 2 and 4, and in the answer space to question no’s 7, 8, 17 and 18 and before Para 3 of the Declaration.
Moreover other pertinent anomalies include the passport photo attached to the enrollment form which is a photocopy of a photograph and not a photograph. Additionally M.Amaranatha has not signed the declaration to uphold the Constitution and the Law, Advocates Act and its Rules which is requisite under Rule 15(2) of Part IX of the Bar Council of India Rules. Furthermore the remarks of the enrollment committee is illegible. Also notable is that M.Amaranatha’s enrollment application form is accompanied only by photocopies of marks card and transfer certificate as against the rules which specify the requirement of original and/or authenticated copies of the same.
The third year LLB marks card with several markings, blurring, disappearance of numbers and letters and un-readability prima facie points to fabrication. The April 1997 and April 1998 LLB marks card declare that M.Amaranatha had failed in the exam even though the marks clearly show that he had passed. This discrepancy points to fabrication of the marks cards.
Why are M.Amaranatha’s verification documents problematic?
The verification form, dated 22.04.2016, submitted by M.Amaranatha is defective under Chapter IV Rules 8 and 13 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules,2015. The passport photos are un-attested 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. 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 does not accompany his verification form.
His signature on his enrollment form, available in his personal file, does not match his signature on the verification form. Moreover he states in his verification form that his place of practice is Mulbagal (as stated in the enrollment form) but the place of practice in the enrollment form is actually Bangalore and as such details vary.
The orders dated 23.08.2017 in Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. clearly states that advocates with defective verification forms would not be included on the electoral rolls. M.Amaranatha’s name is on the electoral roll for Bengaluru at Serial No.4633 on Page 927/2416. Vide orders dated 23.08.2017 the inclusion of his name was subject to having cured all defects on his verification form as well as having submitted his LLB Degree certificate for verification by the University. This is very clearly not the case.
Supreme Court Order in Shilpa Munikempanna & Ors. v. Karnataka State Bar Council & Ors. [W.P No.754 of 2023]
The Supreme Court in the Writ Petition that we filed assailing the order of the Karnataka State Bar Council requested the Bar Council of India to treat an Appeal we had filed as a Revision Petition. This Appeal had been earlier dismissed on non-maintainability because it was filed under the wrong provision of the Advocates Act. The Supreme Court also issued a letter to the Bar Council of India informing them about the decision as well as for necessary action and compliance. Both are available below:
My sister consequently re-filed the Revision Petition, dated 30.10.2023, and this was stated to have been delivered to the Bar Council of India on 05.11.2023. There has been no communication whatsoever.