A plea before the Supreme Court seeks directions to the Bar Council of India to create a nationwide advocate verification system covering enrolment, qualifications, and practice status, alongside a privacy-compliant national database of verified advocates coordinated with all State Bar Councils.
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to formulate and implement, within a fixed time frame, a uniform nationwide system for verifying and authenticating (i) advocate enrolment records, (ii) educational qualifications, and (iii) the status of practice. The proposal also requires coordination with all State Bar Councils.
The plea filed by Yogamaya MG further requests that the Bar Council of India prepare and maintain on its website a consolidated, privacy-compliant national repository of verified advocates. This database is sought to include professional identification particulars and the verification status of advocates, along with appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse of personal data.
ALSO READ: Fake Law Degrees | “Initiate Nationwide Verification Of Advocates”: BCI Orders
Urgent judicial intervention has been sought due to serious concerns affecting the administration of justice. The plea points to reported gaps in verification processes, allegations of the existence of fake, forged, or otherwise unverifiable educational credentials among enrolled advocates, and the lack of a transparent, pan-India mechanism for authenticating enrolment and qualifications.
The petition argues,
“…continued regulatory opacity concerning enrolment authenticity, verification status and disciplinary oversight, if left unaddressed, has the potential to adversely affect fair access to justice, lawful legal representation, public confidence in judicial institutions and rights protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,”
The plea refers to statements reportedly made by BCI leadership, including its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, suggesting that a significant proportion of individuals enrolled or practising as advocates may have fake, forged, or unverifiable educational credentials. It is also alleged that a substantial number have not completed the prescribed verification steps. Misra had recently said that around 35-40% advocates of those practicing in the court are fake. He further stated that when BCI initiated the process to verify degrees, about 40% of the advocates did not fill up the verification form and therefore, these 40% advocates are suspected to be fake.
Emphasizing the responsibility of the Bar Councils to identify fake advocates and deficiencies in verification mechanisms, the petition filed through AOR Deepak Prakash states:
“Reports of removal of fake advocates from enrolment rolls in various States further indicate that the issue is neither isolated nor hypothetical, but one having systemic implications affecting the legal profession and justice delivery mechanism….the concerns regarding fake educational qualifications, irregular enrolments, and deficiencies in verification mechanisms among practicing advocates directly affect the administration of justice, institutional credibility, and public confidence in the legal profession,”
The plea therefore seeks the submission of status reports by State Bar Councils indicating the total number of: (i) enrolled advocates; (ii) verified advocates; (iii) verification cases pending; (iv) enrolments cancelled or suspended; (v) cases involving forged, doubtful, or unverifiable qualifications; and (vi) the steps taken or proposed to complete the verification exercises.
The petition also seeks periodic compliance and progress reports from the Bar Council of India to be filed before the Supreme Court at intervals it deems appropriate. These reports are to reflect the implementation status of verification measures carried out by State Bar Councils. Additionally, the plea requests the constitution of an appropriate independent monitoring mechanism/committee comprising persons with the requisite expertise—to oversee the implementation of verification processes, ensure regulatory accountability, and submit periodic/annual reports before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE