Can Persons With Pending Criminal Cases Be Enrolled As Advocates? Madras High Court Larger Bench To Decide

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi decided to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting that Advocates Act did not empower the High Courts to impose conditions for enrolment.

The court also noted that though full bench of the High Court had agreed with a single judge on not allowing persons with pending criminal cases to enrol, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court cannot usurp the functions of a legislator and impose restrictions that did not exist in the Act.

The bench thus thought it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.

“We are, therefore, of the view that in view of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI and R.Muthu Krishnan cases, the direction given in S.M.Anantha Murugan case deserves to be revisited. Since a coordinate Division Bench as well as a Full Bench have affirmed the said direction, it would not be open to us to issue any contra direction. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider constituting a Larger Bench for resolving the issue,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by S Bhaskarapandian. Bhaskarapandian had obtained a law degree in 1984 and thereafter was working as Village Administrative Officer. After retiring from service in 2014, when he wanted to enrol as an advocate and submitted an application to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, his application was not processed citing his implication in two criminal cases. He had thus approached the court to direct the State Bar Council to enrol him.

The petitioner submitted that the cases against him were pending in FIR stage since the past 10 years. He pointed out that he was unable to enrol himself as an advocate due to a direction issued by a Single judge in S.M.Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman in 2015 asking the Bar Council of India to direct State Bar Councils not to permit law graduates with pending criminal cases to get enrolled.

The court noted that a division bench of the High Court had taken a different view in S.Manikandan v. The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Bar Council where the bench held that mere implication in a criminal case will not come in the way of enrolment as an advocate. When the matter was referred to a full bench, the full bench agreed with the view taken by the single judge but added that the direction was only a temporary measure. The full bench had directed the Bar Council of India to bring in appropriate amendments.

The court noted that Section 24A of the Advocates Act provided the disqualifications or enrolment as an Advocate. The court added that when a validly passed legislation was occupying the field, it was not open for the courts to prescribe further disqualifications by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court thus observed that it could not add what has already been set out a disqualification in Section 24A of the Act.

The court noted that the division bench of the High Court had noted that the conditions stipulated by the High Court can be construed as rules as per Section 34 of the Advocates Act and thus the conditions set out by the full bench can be implemented by the Bar Council.

The court however disagreed with the view taken by the division bench. The court observed that the rules did not empower the High Court to frame rules imposing conditions for enrolment. Thus, the court was inclined to refer the matter to a larger bench for appropriate orders.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. P. Rajan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Susikumar

Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

Case No: W.P(MD) No.6986 of 2015