Sanjeev Nasiar Removed from Bar Council of Delhi Vice Chair Position Over Law Degree Authenticity Inquiry

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has suspended Sanjeev Nasiar from his role as vice chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi. This decision is pending an investigation into the legitimacy of his law degree. Nasiar, who also leads the Aam Aadmi Party's legal cell, obtained his law degree from Devi Ahilya Bai Vishwavidyalaya in Indore.

In a press briefing at the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) headquarters, Nasiar accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of using the BCI against him. He stated, "I am not afraid of any action or investigation. I welcome any inquiry by the CBI or any other authority. I will not be intimidated. Every document of mine has already been verified, and the high court has upheld this."

BCI's Investigation and Actions

Previously, a BCI release indicated that a sub-committee had questioned the authenticity of Nasiar's LLB (Hons) degree after a detailed examination. The BCI's general council accepted the committee's findings and instructed its secretary to request a CBI probe into the degree's validity. "Pending the outcome of the investigation, Sanjeev Nasiar is removed from the position of vice chairman, Bar Council of Delhi," stated BCI secretary Srimanto Sen.

The BCI emphasised that this step was crucial to maintain the legal profession's integrity and public trust. The organisation is committed to preserving the profession's honour by ensuring only those with high ethical standards and qualifications practice law in India.

AAP's Response to BCI's Decision

The Aam Aadmi Party has strongly criticised the BCI's decision to remove Nasiar from his position. AAP leader Durgesh Pathak remarked that an old complaint, which had been stayed by the high court for one-and-a-half years, was sent to the CBI by the BCI, leading to Nasiar's removal. Pathak asserted that AAP firmly opposes this action and demands that BCI retract its arbitrary order.

Pathak further accused the BCI of committing a significant injustice by punishing Nasiar due to his ideological alignment with AAP. He argued that an institution tasked with ensuring justice should not act unjustly against individuals based on their political beliefs.

The unfolding situation highlights tensions between political affiliations and professional responsibilities within India's legal framework. The outcome of this investigation will likely have implications for both Nasiar's career and broader perceptions of political influence in legal matters.