Pages

Monday, October 11, 2021

Impersonating an Advocate can land you in Jail!

To put on a black gown, tie that band around your neck and breeze through the corridors of justice while litigants and court officials look at you with a mixture of envy and awe is the dream of many. However, it takes at least 5 years of full time study to don the robes of an Advocate. Some people, on the other hand, do not want to put in all the effort and want a short cut to the bar. They take the phrase “Where there is a will, there is a way [or a lawyer *wink wink*] ” quite literally. They break the law to appear in front of a judge and act as if they are assisting in the administration of justice! But, every fairy tale must come to an end and this joyride too ends sooner or later. It later dawns upon such daredevils that the thrill they sought has its severe consequences.

The menace of fake lawyers

The problem of Bunty and Babli in the legal profession is not new. Cheaters, swindlers, thugs and charlatans have always been attracted by the lure of the black gown to cloak their nefarious deeds. In 2015 itself, Bar council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said that 30% of lawyers in India are fake and they are the ones who organize strikes and boycotts. In 2017, former Chief Justice of India and the then Governor of Kerala, Justice P Sathasivam flagged the reports about fake lawyers as ‘worrisome’. He said:

“As a person who was fortunate to lead the Indian Judiciary, I am worried about the reports about unqualified lawyers in our State and the nation. We have been hearing reports quoting official sources that thousands of lawyers in Kerala are yet to confirm their educational credentials. Even an allegation in this regard is very depressing and it is high time Lawyers' Associations came forward to clear the misunderstanding caused in society.”

There have been a string of cases since this issue was flagged by Mr. Mishra and Justice Sathasivam where persons impersonating advocates have been nabbed from court premises itself, sometimes even while attempting to argue before the judge!

For instance, a court in Punjab convicteda man who obtained his licence to practise law 21 years ago in 1996, for fraudulently obtaining the law degree. Similarly, High drama ensued in the Allahabad High Court when during the hearing of an appeal filed before a Bench comprising Justice Vipin Sinha and Justice Ifaqat Ali Khan, ‘Advocate’ Jitendra Kumar Singh stood up to argue before the court only to be challenged by another counsel who soon stood up claiming that he was the real Advocate Jitendra Kumar Singh. Likewise, lawyers at the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were in for a shock when a woman, whom they used to see loitering in the corridors of the High Court, suddenly turned up one day to argue a case before a High Court judge! She was confronted, her cover was blown and she was remanded to police custody and was later granted bail by a District Court in the city.

To add to this (not so) illustrious list, there are some who are not content by befooling only the judges. They want to pull one up over the ‘Learned’ Advocates too. Sessy Xavier, a popular personality in the Aleppey Bar of Kerala, stood up for the District Bar Elections for the post of Member (Library) and won handsomely. By all accounts, she was set for an illustrious career at the bar. The judges too appointed her as Advocate Commissioner in some cases. However, the party came to an end when the Bar Association received an anonymous letter alleging that Ms. Xavier had no LL.B. degree and enrollment certificate. Her enrollment number turned out to be that of another Advocate who was practicing in Thiruvananthpuram. Needless to say, Ms. Xavier absconded.     

Although, we can all have a good laugh at these foolish attempts to make a fortune by impersonating a lawyer, SC lawyer Yashraj Singh Deora found to his shock and horror that his bank balance has emptied overnight through cheques forged in his name by one Sunil Kumar Rathi. The accused withdrew large sums of money from the bank after forging the cheques and duplicating the SIM card of Mr. Deora.

Fighting the Fakers

The provisions of law usually slapped against such accused are Sections 415, 416, 417, 419 and 420 from the Indian Penal code which are as follows:

415. Cheating.— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

416. Cheating by personation.—A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation.—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.

417. Punishment for cheating.—Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

419. Punishment for cheating by personation.—Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

So, depending on the context of impersonation, if you are convicted for cheating by impersonating an Advocate, you can land up in jail for anywhere between one and three years and can also be slapped with a fine.

One of the ways in which the Bar Council of India has sought to fight this menace of fake lawyers is through verification of Advocate Rolls in each state. In January 2015, it notified the BCI Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. In its Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Rules observed:

The Bar Council of India has also come to know that a number of fake (farzi) persons (without any Law Degree or enrolment certificate) are indulged in Legal practice and are cheating the Litigants, courts and other stake-holders; and neither the Bar Associations nor the concerned State Bar Councils have any control over such fake persons. Shockingly, it has come to the notice of the Council that at some places, the office-bearers of Bar Associations or some vote-seekers knowingly make such people members and voters of their Associations with a motive to get their votes in the elections of Bar Associations or Bar Councils. Similarly, many persons, after getting enrolled as Advocates in any State Bar Council, get involve in Property-Dealings, contract or switch over to some other business, profession or job and have no more concern with the Legal profession. Such “non-practicing Advocates” are sometimes being used by some of the office-bearers/ candidates for elections of Bar Associations or Bar Councils (only for their votes). But in fact, the Council has realized that such practice is degrading the standard of Legal profession, and this mal-practice has to be stopped.

However, verification of these humongous rolls is a time consuming and laborious task. The elections of State Bar Councils were held up due to the verification drive. It was argued that before verification, legitimate electoral rolls could not be prepared and without them, any voting to elect Bar Council members would carry no credibility. Hence, the validity of these rules was challenged in Ajayinder Sangwan vs. Bar Council of Delhi where the petitioners requested for immediate elections of the State Bar Councils as their term had expired long back whereas the Bar Council of India contended for the need of verification of the candidates to eliminate fake lawyers in order to bring improvements in the Bar and to get deserving practicing advocates for the respective Bar Councils. Vide Order dated 23rd August 2017, the Supreme Court of India directed the Bar Council of India to request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court to control and supervise the verification process and preparation of Electoral Rolls. The elections to the Bar Council of Delhi were held in March 2018 after the supervisory work of this Central Verification Committee was completed.

More recently, the Allahabad High Court sought a response from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as to whether it has formulated a procedure to deal with complaints against fake advocates who are using forged and fictitious degrees to practice. The abovementioned order of the Supreme Court in Ajayinder Sangwan was referenced for the benefit of the Bar Council of UP.

Conclusion

While the menace of fake lawyers and impersonation continue to be battled out in the courts, things recently took a dark turn when armed gangsters entered the Rohini District Court andgunned down a leader of a rival gang before being shot themselves. This shootout not only raised questions on the safety and security of the Courts right in the National Capital of the country, but also highlighted in big bold letters the dangers of impersonation which were restricted to non-violent crimes till now.

Impersonation is a serious crime in itself. Impersonating an Advocate takes the seriousness of the crime up by several notches. The justice administration machinery does not look with mercy at attempts to throw a spanner in its works and to stall its functioning. Shakespeare asked "What's in a name?" One can answer this question by referring to Section 416 of the Indian Penal Code and say "A lot, if the name is suffixed with the title 'Advocate'!"  

No comments:

Post a Comment