Advocate enrolment cancelled for suppression of facts cannot be revived by repeated applications after finality and acquittal.

A person whose enrolment as an advocate was earlier cancelled for suppression of material facts and misrepresentation cannot a fresh right to enrolment through repeated applications once that cancellation has attained finality. The Supreme Court noted that a subsequent acquittal in the criminal case did not erase the original defect in the enrolment process, and Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 recognises the power to remove a name entered by misrepresentation. The repeated enrolment attempts were therefore treated as an abuse of process, and the refusal to enrol was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to enrolment as an advocate despite earlier cancellation of enrolment on the ground of suppression of material facts and whether the repeated attempts at enrolment could be entertained.

Analysis: The earlier cancellation of the appellant's enrolment had attained finality, having been upheld in prior proceedings. The appellant's original enrolment was found to have been obtained by suppression of material facts, and the subsequent acquittal in the criminal case did not remove the basis of that earlier finding. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person entered on the roll by misrepresentation. In these circumstances, the later applications for enrolment could not override the concluded position, and the repeated attempts were treated as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The refusal to enrol the appellant was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person whose enrolment was cancelled for suppression of material facts and misrepresentation cannot claim a fresh right to enrolment by filing repeated applications, and subsequent acquittal does not erase the original defect in enrolment.

---