[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Pooja Khanna vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~120
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 5091/2025
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
POOJA KHANNA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mahboob Inayati and Mr.Shoaib
Khan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC
along with Ms Gurleen Kaur
Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay &
Mr. Saksham Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition seeks a direction to the respondent-Ministry of
Law and Justice to issue a Notary Practice Certificate to the petitioner.
2. It appears that vide notification dated 15th March, 2024 issued by the
respondent, the petitioner was provisionally appointed as a notary, subject to
verification of her eligibility, documents, and payment of requisite fees.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted the documents and paid the
requisite fees. The petitioner had also disclosed, on affidavit, about the
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:32:49
KUMAR KAURAV
pendency of a criminal case against her in the Patiala House Courts.
3. Since the Notary Practice Certificate was not issued to the petitioner,
therefore, she has approached this Court.
4. On notice being issued, the respondent has filed its counter affidavit.
It is stated therein that the case which is pending against the petitioner
concerns offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC'). The respondent, therefore, contends
that a person of unimpeachable character should only be appointed as
Notary. Since a case is pending against the petitioner, therefore, she cannot
be appointed.
5. Additionally, Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, learned CGSC submitted
that the petitioner did not truthfully disclose all the relevant information. She
places specific reliance on paragraph no. 2 of the counter affidavit, wherein
it is stated that the petitioner was discharged on 18.08.2022, however, a
revision was pending for orders. Thus, on the date on which the petitioner
furnished her affidavit, the order of discharge was already set aside vide
order dated 06.04.2024. It is, therefore, contended that when on 12.04.2024
the affidavit was sworn by the petitioner, truthful disclosure ought to have
been made regarding the setting aside of the earlier discharge order.
6. The petitioner, however, justifies the conduct of not mentioning the
factum of order dated 06.04.2024 on the ground that on the date on which
the affidavit was sworn i.e., 12.04.2024, the order was not uploaded on the
concerned Court‟s website. The petitioner reiterates that had there been an
intention to conceal information, or engage in suggestion falsi, the petitioner
would not have disclosed about the pendency of the criminal revision.
According to the petitioner, the material fact which was required to be
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:32:49
KUMAR KAURAV
disclosed was to clearly state the stage of pendency of the criminal case
against the petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and also
perused the record.
8. Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter "Act") reads as
under:
"10. Removal of names from Register.--The Government appointing any
notary may, by order, remove from the Register maintained by it under
section 4 the name of the notary if he--
...
(e) is convicted by any court for an offence involving moral turpitude"
9. The respondent in its reply has not been able to point out any specific
provision in the Act, which would empower the respondent to withhold, or
deny, the grant of Notary Practice Certificate to a person who has a criminal
case pending against him/her. On the other hand, the Court finds that under
Section 10 of the Act, the respondent is fully vested with the authority to
remove the name of the Notary from its Register if the notary concerned is
convicted by any Court for an offence involving moral turpitude. Thus, it is
upon conviction that the consideration of removal of a Notary‟s name from
the register would arise. Mere pendency of the criminal case under the
scheme of the Act, therefore, should not be the sole reason to disentitle the
petitioner from the Notary Practice Certificate.
10. The petitioner like every other citizen of this Country enjoys the
presumption of innocence until she is found guilty of an offence by a Court
of law.
11. Insofar as the argument of Mrs. Dubey regarding non-disclosure is
concerned, the Court is satisfied with the justification provided for by the
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:32:49
KUMAR KAURAV
petitioner. In any case, the gravity and seriousness of the purported non-
disclosure is not sufficient to disentitle an individual, who is otherwise
worthy of a Notary Practice Certificate, from receiving the same.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the Court deems it appropriate to issue
following directions:-
(i) Let the respondent to consider the petitioner‟s pending application
for issuance of the Notary Practice Certificate and to pass a final
decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy
of the order passed today;
(ii) The pendency of the criminal case, should not be the reason to deny
the issuance of Notary Practice Certificate; and
(iii) If as per the respondent, there is any other impediment in granting
the Notary Practice Certificate to the petitioner, it shall be at liberty to
consider the same in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of, along with pending application.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 16, 2026
Nc
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:32:49
KUMAR KAURAV
