The Supreme Court refused to entertain the lawyer’s SLP and questioned his conduct, asking how he could have two children born two months apart. The Bench remarked that such acts undermine credibility and do not merit equitable relief.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain Special Leave Petition filed by advocate Jagmal Singh Mandhan after his senior counsel informed the Bench that the petitioner wished to pursue his pending case before the Bar Council of India.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order.
During the hearing, senior advocate Narender Hooda, appearing for the petitioner along with a team of lawyers, told the court that after arguing at some length, upon instructions, this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue the matter pending before the Bar Council of India.
Based on this submission, the Supreme Court recorded that “the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
The Bench raised serious concerns about the lawyer’s eligibility to practise, questioning how he could have been enrolled despite having allegedly crossed the prescribed age limit of 45 years at the time of enrolment.
The Court was informed that the lawyer had purportedly reduced his age to qualify for enrolment as an advocate. Noting inconsistencies in the declared age, the Bench observed that if the age submitted at the time of enrolment were accepted, he would have been around 12 years old when his children were born.
The documents further indicated that both of his children who were also enrolled as advocates were recorded as being born in the same year, with only a two-month gap between their birth dates.
The Bench questioned,
“Do we need such state lawyers who change their age to circumvent bar of 45 years? You have two children. Do you have two wives? Only then you could have two children with the difference of 2 months. Not otherwise. Everything is wrong. Do they deserve any equitable relief?”
The Bench remarked,
“A man should know when to leave politics. He can give consultation services sitting at home. Not a legal consultant. Just a consultant,”
The matter originated in an anonymous complaint received by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which alleged inconsistencies in the advocate’s date of birth declared at the time of his enrolment in 2006.
As part of the verification process, the Enrolment Committee scrutinised the relevant records, including documents concerning his family and the details of his children who were later enrolled as advocates.
According to the documents, both children were recorded as being born in 1986, separated by only about two months. When these dates were compared with the age submitted by the lawyer, they raised serious doubts about the accuracy of his declared age, as they would imply that he was only around 12 years old when his children were born, if his stated age were taken to be correct.
During the enquiry, the Enrolment Committee also noted that the advocate’s 10+2 certificate was issued by an unrecognised board. Although he was asked to appear before the Enrolment Committee and produce supporting documents, he initially did not comply with the notice.
On the basis of these discrepancies, the Enrolment Committee concluded that the advocate had allegedly furnished a reduced age at the time of enrolment in order to bypass the statutory bar on enrolment of persons above 45 years. Consequently, his licence was suspended, and he was instructed to surrender his enrolment certificate and identity card.
He challenged the action before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that the Enrolment Committee lacked the power to suspend his licence and that only the Bar Council of India could act in cases involving alleged misrepresentation at enrolment.
The High Court, however, ruled that while the Enrolment Committee could not permanently remove his name from the rolls, its order could be treated as a recommendation for removal along with an interim suspension. The Court accordingly directed that the matter be referred to the Bar Council of India for a final decision.
After this, he approached the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: 76 Lawyers Designated as Senior Advocates by Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Bench then issued a key direction, taking note that the petitioner was already under suspension.
The order recorded,
“Considering the fact that petitioner is already under suspension, we direct the Bar Council of India to take appropriate decision in the pending matter within a period of four months from today.”
With the withdrawal of the SLP, the Supreme Court will not examine the merits of the High Court’s decision at this stage. Instead, the petitioner will have to rely on the Bar Council of India the statutory authority empowered to adjudicate disciplinary matters relating to advocates. The four-month timeline set by the Supreme Court now requires the Bar Council of India to complete the proceedings expeditiously.
Case Title: Jagmal Singh Mandhan vs. Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana & Ors.