Supreme Court Orders BCI Probe into “Ghost Lawyer” Appearances Leading to Dubious Property Dispute Settlement

In a significant development aimed at protecting the integrity of court proceedings, the Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct a detailed inquiry into the alleged appearance of “ghost lawyers” in a decade-old property dispute, which led to the disposal of a case on the basis of a purported settlement that one party insists was forged and never agreed upon. 

The matter concerns allegations that certain individuals falsely represented one of the parties before the apex court, secured an order in favour of the opposing party, and filed a forged settlement agreement. The top court has sought a comprehensive report from the BCI by the end of October 2025. A bench comprising Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar noted that the role of the advocates involved in preparing the settlement agreement, its filing, and conduct of proceedings also required close scrutiny. 

“We are of the opinion that the facts leading to the disposal of the Special Leave Petition in terms of the alleged settlement agreement require to be examined in detail,” the bench observed, while refraining from drawing conclusions at this stage.

The Court made these remarks after hearing counsel for the parties, including advocates whose names appeared in previous order sheets, and Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association. The dispute stems from a judgment delivered by the High Court of Patna in a second appeal on 15 July 2024. When the Special Leave Petition (SLP) came up before the Supreme Court on 13 December 2024, the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement on 24 October 2024. Acting on that representation, the bench disposed of the SLP, setting aside orders of the lower courts. 

However, on 13 May 2025, the respondent, Harish Jaiswal, filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of the December 2024 order. He alleged that he had never authorised any person to appear on his behalf in the matter. Jaiswal claimed he only discovered the case by chance, when his son-in-law found the Supreme Court order on the Indian Kanoon website while checking updates in related execution proceedings. Shocked by this revelation, Jaiswal alleged that the so-called settlement agreement was forged and fabricated, and that he had not engaged any counsel or appeared personally in the matter. The respondent further stated that a caveat had been filed in the matter in his name without his knowledge, preventing him from receiving any notice of the proceedings. According to Jaiswal, this was part of a “meticulously crafted conspiracy” to secure a favourable order for the petitioner, Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh, by depriving him of the opportunity to contest the case on merits. 

Jaiswal emphasised that he had already succeeded before the High Court and was pursuing execution proceedings when this alleged fraud occurred. The names of Advocate-on-Record J. M. Khanna and advocate Shefali Sethi Khanna appeared in the record of proceedings. However, both denied any involvement in the case. J. M. Khanna submitted that he had left legal practice and had never been engaged in the matter, while Shefali Sethi Khanna stated she had nothing to do with it. Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed its Secretary-General to nominate a senior officer to conduct an internal inquiry into how it came to appear that counsel for the respondent had been engaged for consenting to the alleged settlement. The court also recalled its 13 December 2024 order and restored the SLP to the file. Now, taking the matter further, the apex court has tasked the Bar Council of India with conducting a full-fledged investigation into how the alleged fraudulent settlement was prepared and filed, who appeared in court on behalf of the respondent without authorisation, and whether any misconduct was committed by advocates or others involved in the process. The BCI is required to file its report by 31 October 2025.

This order is significant because it touches upon the core issue of authenticity of legal representation before the country’s highest court. Allegations of unauthorised appearances and forged settlements strike at the heart of the legal profession’s ethical obligations and the court’s trust in counsel. By entrusting the BCI with this inquiry, the Supreme Court has signalled its intent to ensure accountability not just for parties to litigation, but also for members of the legal fraternity who may be complicit, knowingly or unknowingly, in such acts. The matter will be taken up for further consideration in the first week of November 2025, once the BCI submits its findings.

Case Title: Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal

Bench: Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar