In India, 33% to 45% fake people are in legal profession as per Law Commission Report

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Report no 266

As per recent media reports 35, the Bar Council of India conducted verification of advocates under the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, and it was reported that a very high percentage (33 to 45%) of lawyers were fake. Such lawyers were practicing either with the fake law degree or without any degree at all. The process of verification is not yet complete and the so-called bogus lawyers could be identified only by scrutiny. Apprehension has been raised that the alleged bogus lawyers could have succeeded in making entry in the judiciary, government services and some of them could have been appointed as Government pleaders, Law Officers, etc. Such persons might have succeeded in mission by impersonation and entering into criminal conspiracy. Thus legal advice offered by such persons could affect the deliverance and quality of justice and their mere existence in legal system would definitely erode the public trust .

This is a crucial matter casting shadow on the nobility of the legal profession. As such, to establish the probity of advocacy, it requires a thorough scrutiny and verification. Towards this end, the Law Commission recommends a specific rule making power for Bar Council of India to make rules for verification of certificates of Advocates and for periodical verification of antecedents, conduct, place of practice of Advocates; and to make a data based web-portal of all the advocates.


35 The Times of India, Delhi dated 23.01.2017, The Hindu dated 26.01.2017 and Hindustan Times dated 19.03.2017.


Source : LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA Report No.266 The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of Legal Profession) March, 2017 , page 33 [Read the report: Report 266]

Next Post

Whether owner of vehicle would get benefit of insurance if meet with accidental death while driving illegally

Fri Aug 31 , 2018
It is an admitted position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

You May Like

Recent Updates

%d bloggers like this: