On Monday(12th August), the Delhi High Court concluded proceedings on a petition challenging the authenticity of AAP legal cell president Sanjeev Nasiar’s law degree, following a verification report from Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya affirming its authenticity. The petition, filed by Naresh Chandra Gupta, also accused another advocate, Dilip Kumar Rana, of holding a fake law degree.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday(12th August), concluded the proceedings related to a petition challenging the authenticity of the law degree of Sanjeev Nasiar, an advocate and the president of the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) legal cell. The court’s decision came after the university concerned, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya in Indore, submitted a verification report affirming that Nasiar’s law degree is authentic.
The petition, filed by Naresh Chandra Gupta, a former president of the Delhi Bar Association, accused Sanjeev Nasiar and another advocate, Dilip Kumar Rana, of holding fake law degrees. Gupta’s petition sought judicial intervention to verify the authenticity of their qualifications. However, the court’s judgement, delivered by Justice Sachin Datta, dismissed the allegations against Nasiar after reviewing the university’s confirmation of his degree.
Court’s Findings on Sanjeev Nasiar’s Degree
Justice Sachin Datta, while passing the judgement on August 12, explicitly stated that –
“There is no foundation for the claim in the writ petition that respondent no. 3, Sanjeev Nasiar’s LLB degree, is ‘forged and fabricated.'”
The judge further added-
“Considering the communications from the concerned university, there is no basis for the claim in the writ petition that respondent no. 3, Sanjeev Nasiar’s LLB degree, is ‘forged and fabricated.'”
The court noted that the university had made a clear and unambiguous statement, asserting that the degree awarded to Nasiar, both provisional and final, is “genuine and regular.”
The bench remarked-
“Therefore, the concerned university has clearly stated that both the provisional and final degrees of respondent no. 3 are ‘genuine and regular.'”
Verification Process and the Role of the High-Powered Committee
The bench also referred to a communication dated March 15, 2024, from Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Delhi. This correspondence played a pivotal role in the court’s decision, reinforcing the legitimacy of Nasiar’s law degree. The court acknowledged the communication in its judgement, reinforcing the view that the petition against Nasiar lacked merit.
Additionally, the High Court referenced an earlier order from April 25, 2023, which was part of a contempt case dating back to 2016. In this order, the court had directed that the complaint against Dilip Kumar Rana, respondent no. 4 in this case, be referred to a High-Powered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. The purpose of this referral was to ensure a thorough and impartial verification of Rana’s law degree.
The April 25, 2023, order specifically instructed the Secretary of the Bar Council of India to submit all relevant documents to the High-Powered Committee. This submission was intended to facilitate the issuance of appropriate directions to both the Bar Council of Delhi and Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya for the verification of Rana’s degree.
Pending Verification of Dilip Kumar Rana’s Degree
Regarding Dilip Kumar Rana, the Delhi High Court’s bench acknowledged the affidavit submitted by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) on April 23, 2024. The affidavit disclosed that the necessary documents for verifying Rana’s law degree had already been forwarded to the Secretary of the Bar Council of India, who serves as the Nodal Officer for the High-Powered Committee. The court, in its judgement, emphasized the need for prompt action, stating-
“Under the circumstances, the High-Powered Committee is requested to promptly finalize the verification of respondent no. 4’s degree and certificate of enrollment.”
The petition had been based on the allegation that Sanjeev Nasiar, despite being unqualified, holds the position of Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi. The petitioner argued that Nasiar’s documents, which were used to obtain his enrollment as an advocate by the BCD, were not genuine and had been forged. Similar allegations were made against Dilip Kumar Rana, accusing him of obtaining his enrollment with the BCD through forged and fabricated documents.
The petition further alleged that the BCD, acting with oblique motives, had deliberately refrained from taking any action against Nasiar and Rana despite the serious nature of the allegations.
With the university’s confirmation of Nasiar’s degree, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition against him, but it also urged the High-Powered Committee to expedite the verification process for Rana’s degree. This ruling brings a degree of clarity to the matter, but the final resolution concerning Rana remains pending.