Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmal Singh Mandhan vs Bar Council Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors on 19 February, 2026
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
WP-32178-2025 (O&M)
Date
ate of Decision:
Decision:19.02.2026
Jagmal Singh Mandhan ...Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana ...Respondents
and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi,, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Sanyam Malhotra,, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Rahish Pahwa and Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocates,
for respondent No.1.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. Petitioner – Jagmal Singh Mandhan assails order dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure
P-15)
15) passed by the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab &
Haryana vide which license issued to him to practice as an Advocate has been
suspended and he has been directed
directed to surrender his enrolment certificate as
well as his identity card.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, he was enrolled as an Advocate with the
Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana in the year 2006 vide Enrolment
No.P/159/2006 and has been practicing at District Courts, Karnal and had
also held various positions in the local Bar Associations including the post of
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(2)
President of the Sub Division Bar, Indri. It is averred that the petitioner’s
daughter namely Ms. Anju Mandhan got enrolled as an Advocate in the year
2009 and that the petitioner’s son namely Mr. Virender Mandhan was also
enrolled as an Advocate in the year 2010. As per the petitioner, his date of
birth, as furnished by his father at the time of his admission in school, is
26.11.1973, which has consistently been reflected in all his testimonials
including Matriculation certificate, Graduation, LLB, Aadhar Card and PAN
Card and that he had never used any other certificate as regards his date of
birth.
3. However,, pursuant to an anonymous complaint received by the Bar Council
of Punjab & Haryana pertaining to discrepancies in the petitioner’s personal
record, the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana
took up the matter and vide order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P
P-2),
2), while
noticing some short-comings
short comings in respect of verification and authenticity as
regards petitioner’s date of birth, directed him to submit his matriculation
certificate on or before 12.09.2025. While
hile passing th
the said order,, it was also
noticed that in case the date of birth as declared by the petitioner is taken to
be correct i.e. 26.11.1973, the same would imply that he was merely 12 years
old at the time of birth of his children i.e. Ms. Anju Devi (daughter) aand Mr.
Virender Mandhan (son),
(son), who were born in the year 1986 with a gap of only
2 months between their dates of birth. Consequently, strong suspicion having
been raised, the petitioner as well as his children were directed to appear
before the Enrolment Committee on 12.09.2025 at 2.00 PM and to submit
valid and authenticated documents in support of their dates of birth.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(3)
4. Pursuant to the notice dated 06.09.2025 having been issued to the petitioner
as well as to his
his children in compliance of order dated 05.09.2025, they filed
a joint reply taking a stand that the dates of birth disclosed by them are the
ones as hadd been mentioned by their elders, who were illiterate, at the time of
their admission in school only on the basis of estimation without there being
any proof. It was further stated that they were in the process of getting the
dates of birth corrected from the authorities concerned by filing a civil suit
and were having resort to other necessary proceedings in this regard and,
thus, requested therein that the matter may either be adjourned sine die or be
filed.
5. The petitioner and his children having
ha failed to appear before the Enrolment
Committee of Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana
Haryana, the Committee vide order
dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-4),
P while grant
granting another opportunity to them
to comply with order dated 05.09.2025, adjourned the matter to 19.09.2025
and also warned that in case no documents of proof are produced, their
licenses may be suspended and necessary steps for the cancellation of the
same as well as for registration of an FIR would be taken against them.
6. Thereafter, a detailed reply dated 19.09.2025 was filed by the petitioner
alone, wherein
rein a stand was taken that at the time of his admission in school,
his father had furnished his date of birth as 26.11.1973, which is reflected in
all of his certificates and that he does not possess any record pertaining to his
date of birth other than the
the matriculation certificate. Similarly, he took a
stand that at the time of admission of his children in school, it was his father
who provided the particulars as regards date of birth of petitioner’s children
and that it was on account of inadvertence that the date of birth of his
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(4)
daughter namely Anju Devi came to be recorded as 17.10.1986 by the school
staff although her actual date of birth is 13.11.1985 and that the correct date
of birth of his son namely Mr.. Virender Mandhan is 18.08.1986. He further
stated therein
herein that he was married at an early age due to compelling family
circumstances and that considering his mother’s ailing health as well as his
own physical fitness and prevailing local customs, his fa
father
ther arranged his
marriage at that stage.
7. The Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana
Haryana,, while
considering the complaint, passed the impugned order dated 01.10.2025
observing therein that pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner, he had
submitted a photocopy of his 10+2 certificate purportedly issued by the Board
of Adult Education and Training, Delhi (Proadh Shiksha Sansthan) and that
upon verification thereof, it was found that the said Board was not recognized
by any competent authority.
8. The Committee, while observing that the petitioner had specifically disclosed
his age on the lesser side in order to circumvent the Rule, which prohibits
enrolment of an individual as an Advocate who is above 45 years of age,
age
opined that the license of the petitioner be suspended with immediate effect
and directed him to submit the original enrolment certificate and ID card
before the Bar Council in the Enrolment Section so that proceeding for
termination of the license could be initiated. The operative portion of the
impugned order dated 01.10.2025 is extracted herein under:
“Keeping
Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances,
the Committee is of the view that the license of the respondent
respondent-
Advocate be suspended with immediate eff
effect and he is further
directed to submit the original enrolment certificate and ID card
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)(5)
before the Bar Council in the Enrolment Section, so that proceedings of
the termination of the license be initiated, failing which further
necessary action will be taken
taken and the FIR will be registered against
him.””
9. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently
argued that the ‘Enrolment
Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab &
Haryana’ has no power of suspend the license of the petitioner and that it was
only the ‘Bar Council of India’, which is competent in this regard. It has
further been submitted that while the disciplinary committee constituted in
terms of Section 35 of the Advocates
Advocates Act, 1961 would be competent to
suspend the license or even to remove the name of the advocate from the
State roll,, but such power of suspension is not vested with the Enrolment
Committee and that in terms of Section 26 of the said Act
Act, while the State Bar
Council or any Committee constituted by it may examine an application
pertaining to enrolment as an Advocate, but it is only the Bar Council of
India, which either on a reference made to it or otherwise
otherwise,, in a matter
pertaining to enrolment by mis-representation,
mis representation, fraud etc. may remove the
name of such person.
10. On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing respondent No.1,
No.1
while admitting that as per proviso to Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961,
it is the Bar Council of India which
which is competent to remove a person from the
rolls of Advocate on grounds of having got enrolment on the basis of mis-
mis
representation, fraud etc., submitted that the question as regards propriety of
enrolment can duly be considered by the Enrolment Committee since it is the
Enrolment Committee which has the power to order for enrolment and also to
refuse the enrolment and as such, the Enrolment Committee, being vested
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(6)
with such power, cannot be said to be absolutely powerless to take action in
case enrolment by way of fraud, mis-representation
representation etc. comes to its notice.
It has been submitted that the Enrolment Committee upon examining the
matter intended to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India and it was for
this purpose that the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab &
Haryana issued directions to the petitioner to submit his enrolment certificate
and ID card, which the petitioner did not comply with and rather chose to
approach this Court instead.
11. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the
judgments pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf
of the respondents.
12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to bear in mind the scheme of the Act
pertaining to enrolment, removal etc. The relevant Sections i.e. Sections 26,
26A, 35,, 36 & 42 of the Advocates Act, 1961, are reproduced herein under:
“26. Disposal of applications for admission as an advocate
advocate. – (1) A State Bar
Council shall refer every application for admission as an advocate to its
enrolment committee, and subject to the provisions of sub
sub-sections (2) and
(3) [and to any direction that may be given in writing by the State Bar
Council in this behalf], such committee shall dispose of the application in the
prescribed manner:
[Provided
Provided that the Bar Council of India may, if satisfied, either on a
reference made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that any person has got his
name entered on the roll of advocates
advocates by misrepresentation as to an essential
fact or by fraud or undue influence, remove the name of such person from the
roll of advocates after giving him an opportunity of being heard.
heard.]
(2) Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council proposes to
refuse any such application, it shall refer the application for opinion to the
Bar Council of India and every such reference shall be accompanied by a
statement of the grounds in support of the refusal of the application.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(7)
(3) The enrolment committee off a State Bar Council shall dispose of any
application referred to the Bar Council of India under sub
sub-section (2) in
conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India.
(4) Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council has refused
any application
application for admission as an advocate on its roll, the State Bar Council
shall, as soon as may be, send intimation to all other State Bar Councils about
such refusal stating the name, address and qualifications of the person whose
application was refused and the
the grounds for the refusal.
26A. Power to remove names from roll. – A State Bar Council may remove from
the State roll the name of any advocate who is dead or from whom a request
has been received to that effect.”
effect.
xx xx
35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct. – (1) Where on receipt of a
complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any
advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct
misconduct, it
shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.
(1A) The State Bar Council may, either of its own motion or on application
made to it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding pending
before its disciplinary committee and direct the inquiry to be made by
any other disciplinary
plinary committee of that State Bar Council.
(2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall fix a date for
the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to
the advocate concerned and to the Advocate
Advocate-General of the State.
(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the
advocate concerned and the Advocate
Advocate-General an opportunity of
being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:
namely:-
(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated
at the instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the
proceedings be filed;
(b) reprimand the advocate;
(c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may
deem fit;
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of
advocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause (c) of
sub-section
section (3), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred
from practising
actising in any court or before any authority or person in India.
(5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate
Advocate-General under sub-section
(2), the Advocate-General
General may appear before the disciplinary
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)(8)
committee of the State Bar Council either in person or through any
advocate appearing on his behalf.”
36. Disciplinary powers of Bar Council of India.― (1) Where on receipt of a
complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any
advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of
professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its
disciplinary committee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the disciplinary
committee of the Bar Council of India may, [either of its own motion
or on a report by any State Bar Council or oon an application made to it
by any person interested], withdraw for inquiry before itself any
proceedings for disciplinary action against any advocate pending
before the disciplinary committee of any State Bar Council and
dispose of the same.
(3) The disciplinary
iplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, in disposing
of any case under this section, shall observe, so far as may be, the
procedure laid down in section 35, the references to the Advocate
Advocate-
General in that section being construed as references to the Attorney-
General of India.
(4) In disposing of any proceedings under this section the disciplinary
committee of the Bar Council of India may make any order which the
disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council can make under sub
sub-
section (3) of section 35, and where any proceedings have been
withdrawn for inquiry [before the disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council of India], the State Bar Council concerned shall give effect to
any such order.
xx xx
42. Powers of disciplinary committee.
committee – (1) The disciplinary committee of a
Bar Council shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under
the Code of Civil
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following
matters, namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
(b) requiring discovery and production of any documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any Court or
office;
(e) issuing
ng commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
and
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
(9)
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed:
Provided that no such disciplinary committee shall have the right to require
the attendance of –
(a) any presiding officer of a Court except wi
with the previous sanction of
the High Court to which such Court is subordinate;
(b) any officer of a revenue Court except with the previous sanction of
the State Government.
(2) All proceedings before a disciplinary committee of a Bar Council
shall be deemedd to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of
sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and
every such disciplinary committee shall be deemed to be a Civil Court
for the purposes of sections 480, 482 and 485 of the [Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(3) For the purposes of exercising any of the powers conferred by sub
sub-
section (1), a disciplinary committee may send to any Civil Court in
the territories to which this Act extends, any summons or other
process, for the attendance of a witness or the production of a
document required by the committee or any commission which it
desires to issue, and the Civil Court shall cause such process to be
served or such commission to be issued, as the case may be, and may
enforce any such process ass if it were a process for attendance or
production before itself.
(4) Notwithstanding the absence of the Chairman or any member of a
disciplinary committee on a date fixed for the hearing of a case before
it, the disciplinary committee may, if it so think
thinks fit, hold or continue
the proceedings on the date so fixed and no such proceedings and no
order made by the disciplinary committee in any such proceedings
shall be invalid merely by reason of the absence of the Chairman or
member thereof on any such date:
Provided that no final orders of the nature referred to in sub
sub-section
(3) of section 35 shall be made in any proceeding unless the Chairman
and other members of the disciplinary committee are present.
(5) Where no final orders of the nature referred to in sub
sub-section (3) of
section 35 can be made in any proceeding in accordance with the
opinion of the Chairman and the members of a disciplinary committee
either for want of majority opinion amongst themselves or otherwise,
the case, with their opinion thereon, shall be laid before the Chairman
of the Bar Council concerned or if the Chairman of the Bar Council is
acting as the Chairman or a member of the disciplinary committee,
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)( 10 )
before the Vice-Chairman of the Bar
ar Council, and the said Chairman
or the Vice-Chairman
Chairman of the Bar Council, as the case may be, after
such hearing as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion and the final
order of the disciplinary committee shall follow such opinion.
opinion.”
13. It may here be mentioned that the instant case is of proceedings arising out of
the alleged fraudulent enrolment and do not pertain to any kind of other
allegations of professional or other misconduct. While complaints pertaining
to misconduct are dealt with by a disci
disciplinary
plinary committee specifically
provided in terms of Section 35 as well as Section 36 of the Advocates Act,
the matters pertaining to fraudulent enrolments would not fall within the
domain of disciplinary committee. Inn terms of proviso to Section 26(1) of the
Advocates Act,
Act, it is only the Bar Council of India, which has such powers.
The said proviso is reproduced herein under:
“Provided that the Bar Council of India may, if satisfied, either on a
reference made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that any pperson has got his
name entered on the roll of advocates by misrepresentation as to an essential
fact or by fraud or undue influence, remove the name of such person from the
roll of advocates after giving him an opportunity of being heard.”
14. Hon’ble the Division Bench of Madras High Court in a judgment reported as
M. Bhuvaneswari Vs. The Bar Council of India, Rep. by its Secretary &
others, AIR 2018 Madras 139 (DB),, while examining the scope of powers of
the State Bar Council regarding removal of roll of an Advocate, who had got
himself enrolled by mis-representation,
mis held as under:
“14. The above provision makes it clear that it enables Bar Council of India, either
on a reference made on it or otherwise may remove the roll of advocate who
entered on the roll by misrepresentation as to an essential fact or by fraud or
undue influence.
15. It is well settled, that proviso cannot be read in isolation from the main
enactment
tment nor can be used to defeat the real object of the main enactment. In
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)( 11 )
this regard it is useful to refer the relevant portion of the judgement reported
in (2015) 2 Surpeme Court Cases 701 [Sidhharth Viyas and Another v.
Ravinath Misra and others]:-
others]:
“15. In S. Sundaram Pillai & others vs. V.R. Pattabiraman [17 (1985) 1
SCC 591 [LQ/SC/1985/23] , it was observed: (SCC pp.606
pp.606-07, paras
27-30)
“27. The next question that arises for consideration is as to what is the
scope of a proviso and what is the ambit of an Explanation either to a
proviso or to any other statutory provision. We shall first take up the
question of the nature, scope and exten
extent of a proviso. The well
established rule of interpretation of a proviso is that a proviso may
have three separate functions. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an
exception to something within the main enactment or to qualify
something enacted therein which
ch but for the proviso would be within
the purview of the enactment. In other words, a proviso cannot be torn
apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify or set at
naught the real object of the main enactment.
enactment.”
16. When the State Bar Council
Council was vested with power to admit any person
as an advocate on its roll, it cannot be said that State Bar Council has
denuded its power to regulate a member or a person who entered its roll
by fraudulent means or misrepresentation
misrepresentation. Therefore, we are of the view
that the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, at the most can
be construed as enabling provision which gives a power to Bar Council of
India also to remove any of the person from the roll of the State Bar Council
either on a reference made to it by the State Bar Council or otherwise. When
such member enrolled on its roll by misrepresentation as to an essential fact
or by way of fraudulent activities or undue influence etc., such enabling
provision cannot be construed that State Bar Coun
Council which has power to
admit any person as an advocate on its roll have no right at all to deal with its
power to regulate the legal profession. If the intention of the legislature was
to take away the power of the State Bar Council to remove the members ffrom
its roll, the power to admit a person as an advocate on its roll would not have
been given to the State Bar Council as per Section 26(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the
Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the view that the proviso to
Section 26(1) cannot be construed to exclude the power of the State Bar
Council to remove an Advocate from its roll for misrepresentation as to
an essential fact or fraudulent act or undue influence etc., at the time of
enrollment
enrollment.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
( 12 )
17. The main object of the Advocates Act, 196
1961, is to prescribe an uniform
qualification for the admission of persons to be advocates. When the State
Bar Council is vested with power to admit members, such power includes to
remove from its role. For this Section 16 of the General Clauses Act can be
imported.
mported.
18. When the main Act is silent about the specific provisions, the provision of
the General Clauses Act also can be imported. Therefore, we are of the
view that the State Bar Council has a power to issue interim prohibitory
order as against any member
member who got themselves enrolled as a member
by resorting fraudulent acts and misrepresentation and besides
producing false certificates etc.
etc. It is only the State Bar Council can take
action against such unscruplous members on its roll. It is high time for the
State Bar Council to take appropriate action to weed out the unscruplous
members from its role. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is upto the Bar Council of India to decide
the issue. Hence, we are of the view that the State Bar Council which has
a power to enroll the members on its role has a power to pass prohibitory
order. In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
order. dismissed."
(...emphasis supplied)
15. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment
judgment leaves no manner of doubt as regards
power of the State Bar Council particularly as regards passing of any
prohibitory orders. Needless to mention, any prohibitory order is to be only
when the State Bar Council or the Enrolment Committee is satisfied as
regards alleged mis-representation,
mis representation, fraud etc. committed by the Advocate at
the time of his enrolment.
16. As far as judgment relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Suresh Kumar,, Advocate
Vs. Enrolment Committee, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryan
Haryana
a High Court,
Chandigarh & others, CWP-3673-2021
CWP 2021 decided on 16.03.2021, is concerned,
we find that the said judgment is primarily based on a concession made by
the counsel for the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana and no adjudication was
made therein pertaining
pertaining to the scope or the powers vested with the Enrolment
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
( 13 )
Committee. Similarly, we find that the other judgment pressed into service
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Vijay Bharat Verma Vs. Bar
Council of Punjab & Haryana, CWP-13235
CWP 13235-2020 decided on 23.11.2020,
23.11.2020
arose out of a case where the license of an Advocate had been suspended by
the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana while referring to a complaint made to
the disciplinary committee. It may here be mentioned that the complaint
made therein against the Advocate pertained
pertained to certain remarks made by him
on Facebook,
Facebook, which in any case did not pertain to any issue as regards
enrolment by mis-representation,
mis representation, fraud etc. As such, the said judgment
udgment
would not have any application to the present case.
17. In the present case, the observations recorded in the impugned order dated
01.10.2025 (Annexure P-15)
P do point towards inconsistencies in the dates of
birth of the petitioner and of his children,
children, which are not only suspicious, but
are highly improbable. In any case, vide the impugned order, the Enrolment
Committee has not removed the name of the petitioner from the rolls, but
opined that the license be suspended. As such, it is clarified that the
impugned order is to be treated as a recommendation for removal with an
interim measure of suspension of license. However, we are also conscious of
the fact that the impugned order was passed way back in the month of
October, 2025 and it will indeed
ind create
ate hardship for an Advocate whose
license has been suspended without taking any final decision in the matter.
Therefore,
fore, respondent No.1 – Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana is directed to
immediately refer the matter to the Bar Council of India for considering the
matter pertaining to removal of petitioner’s name from the rolls.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32178-2025 (O&M)
( 14 )
18. The petitioner is directed to hand-over
hand over his original documents i.e. enrolment
certificate and ID card, to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana within one
week from today. In case, the petitioner does not surrender his original
enrolment certificate and ID card, the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana
Haryana,, in
any case,, shall refer the matter to the Bar Council of India within a period of
three weeks.
weeks In case, the same is not referred, the interim suspension of
enrolment of the petitioner shall stand automatically revoked
revoked.
19. It is further directed that the Bar Council of India upon a reference made by
the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana shall take a final decision in the matter
at the earliest.
20. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
(GURVINDER
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
GILL)
JUDGE
(RAMESH KUMARI)
19.02.2026 JUDGE
Vimal
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.02.20 11:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
