“Certificate Of Practice Subsists” – Bombay High Court Decides Not To Precipitate Action Against Lawyer Whose Bar Council ID Card Expired

The Bombay High Court has decided not to initiate any further action against advocate Avnendra Kumar, who had appeared without a valid identity card during a recent bail hearing, after accepting his unconditional apology.

Justice Karnik observed, “In any case the Certificate of Practice issued by the Bar Council of India subsists, which could not be produced before the coordinate bench, hence any further action is now not necessary.”

On March 13th when Kumar appeared before a coordinate bench seeking adjournment in a bail application filed by advocate Abdul Karim Pathan on behalf of an accused. However, Kumar's identity card issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh expired on December 31, 2022.

Expressing concerns, the bench had directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate appropriate action against Kumar for appearing without proper registration.

However, during the hearing before Justice M.S. Karnik subsequently, Pathan filed an affidavit explaining that he had asked Kumar to appear and seek adjournment as he was unwell that day. Pathan stated he was unaware that Kumar's UP identity card had expired.

Kumar further produced his Certificate of Practice issued by the Bar Council of India, which was still valid, though he could not renew his identity card due to personal tragedies like his father's demise in 2021.

After hearing the explanations, Justice Karnik observed that while Kumar's identity card had lapsed, his Certificate of Practice remained subsisting. The court noted that since Kumar had not filed an appearance and was merely asking for an adjournment on Pathan's instructions, the matter need not be "precipitated any further."

Tendering an unconditional apology, Kumar assured he had no intention of misleading the court. The Bar Council's representative submitted that since Kumar was not registered with them, it was outside their jurisdiction to take action.

Accepting the explanations and apologies as bonafide, Justice Karnik disposed of the matter without initiating any further proceedings against Kumar.

In the first hearing, another issue that arose was of two bail applications being filed for the same accused. Pathan explained that he had filed the second bail application on the instructions of the accused's family. He stated that they were unaware that the accused Moinoddin Golder had filed an application through prison.

Accordingly, the court accepted an apology realising a genuine mistake was made.

Click Here To Read/Download Order