The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India to investigate allegations of “ghost lawyers” who allegedly forged a settlement in a property dispute, falsely represented a party, and secured an order favouring the opposing side.
The Supreme Court has instructed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to investigate the alleged involvement of “ghost lawyers” in a long-standing property dispute.
This case was resolved based on a purported settlement, which one party claims was forged and never agreed upon.
The allegations suggest that certain individuals falsely represented one party before the Supreme Court, obtained an order favoring the opposing side, and submitted a forged settlement agreement.
The apex court has requested a thorough report from the BCI by the end of October 2025.
Also Read: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
A bench consisting of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar remarked that the advocates’ roles in preparing the settlement agreement, filing it, and conducting the proceedings warrant close examination.
While withholding any conclusions at this point, the bench stated,
“We are of the opinion that the facts leading to the disposal of the Special Leave Petition in terms of the alleged settlement agreement require to be examined in detail,”
This issue arose from a High Court of Patna judgment in a second appeal on July 15, 2024. When the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was presented to the Supreme Court on December 13, 2024, it was reported that a settlement had been reached on October 24, 2024. Acting on that representation, the bench disposed of the SLP, set-asiding lower court orders.
However, on May 13, 2025, the respondent, Harish Jaiswal, filed a miscellaneous application requesting the recall of the December 2024 order. He claimed he had never authorized anyone to represent him and discovered the case by chance when his son-in-law found the Supreme Court order on the Indian Kanoon website while checking updates related to execution proceedings.
Shocked by this information, Jaiswal alleged that the purported settlement agreement was fabricated and that he had neither engaged counsel nor appeared personally in the matter.
He also mentioned that a caveat had been filed in his name without his knowledge, preventing him from receiving notice of the proceedings. Jaiswal asserted that this was part of a “meticulously crafted conspiracy” aimed at securing a favorable order for the petitioner, Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh, by denying him the chance to contest the case on its merits.
Jaiswal highlighted that he had already succeeded in the High Court and was pursuing execution proceedings when this alleged fraud took place.
The records indicate that Advocate-on-Record J. M. Khanna and Advocate Shefali Sethi Khanna were involved; both denied any participation in the case. J. M. Khanna stated he had left legal practice and had never been engaged, while Shefali Sethi Khanna claimed no involvement.
Previously, the Supreme Court had directed its Secretary-General to appoint a senior officer for an internal inquiry into how it appeared that counsel for the respondent had consented to the alleged settlement.
The court also recalled its December 13, 2024 order and reinstated the SLP. Now, the apex court has tasked the BCI with conducting a comprehensive investigation into how the alleged fraudulent settlement was created and filed, who represented the respondent without authorization, and whether any misconduct occurred among the advocates or others involved.
The BCI is expected to submit its report by October 31, 2025.
Also Read: BCI Bars Seven Law Colleges from Admitting Students for 2024-25 Academic Year
This directive is crucial as it addresses the authenticity of legal representation before the nation’s highest court. Allegations of unauthorized appearances and forged settlements challenge the ethical responsibilities of the legal profession and the court’s trust in counsel.
By assigning this inquiry to the BCI, the Supreme Court has expressed its commitment to ensuring accountability not only for litigants but also for members of the legal community who may be complicit, knowingly or unknowingly, in such misconduct.
The matter is set to be reviewed in the first week of November 2025, following the BCI’s findings.
Case Title: Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal