Bombay High Court Decided Not To Participate Action Against Lawyer Whose Bar Council Id Card Expired; Certificate Of Practice Subsists

The Bombay High Court in the case observed and 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.
The bench headed by Justice Karnik in the case observed that if 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.

The court observed that when Kumar appeared before a coordinate bench on March 13, wherein seeking adjournment in a bail application filed by advocate Abdul Karim Pathan on behalf of an accused.
Therefore, the Kumar’s identity card issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh expired on December 31, 2022.
The bench while expressing concerns 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.

The bench headed by Justice M.S. Karnik in the case observed and has 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.
Further, the Kumar 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.

The bench of Justice Karnik in the case observed that while the Kumar’s identity card had lapsed, his Certificate of Practice remained subsisting.
The court in the case 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.’

The Kumar also assured that he had no intention of misleading the court.
Further, it has been submitted by the Bar Council’s representative that since Kumar was not registered with them, it was outside their jurisdiction to take action.
The bench of Justice Karnik disposed of the matter without initiating any further proceedings against Kumar.

During 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 in the case stated that they were unaware that the accused Moinoddin Golder had filed an application through prison.
Accordingly, the court accepting an apology realising a genuine mistake was made.