Madras High Court Moots Policy Review On Enrolment, Bar Association Posts For Advocates Facing Criminal Cases, Orders Survey

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the direction after noting the large number of cases flooding the courts, involving practicing advocates. The court added that the issue has reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision was required.

The court said that a survey by the Bar Council into number of advocates facing charges would in turn assist in taking an informed policy decision and framing appropriate rules regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations.

“The increasing number of such cases coming before this Court has assumed alarming proportions. The attention of the stakeholders, namely the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, is therefore required to be drawn to this issue. Any survey or research undertaken by them would facilitate the collection of reliable factual data, which in turn would assist them in taking informed policy decisions and framing appropriate regulatory measures,” the court said.

The court lamented that if a large section of the legal fraternity was involved in criminal litigation, it would not just affect the image of the Bar but would also affect the credibility of the justice delivery system.

“If a substantial / large section of the legal fraternity is personally involved in criminal litigation, it has the potential not only to affect the image of the Bar, in the long run, the credibility of the justice delivery system itself,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by an advocate, B Jegadeeshwaran, seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him by the Kannankurichi Police Station in Salem District, for offences under Section 326(g), 324(4) of the BNS and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act.

The allegation against the petitioner was that he, along with another, had set fire to petrol-filled beer bottles and thrown them at a TASMAC shop. The petitioner had challenged the FIR on the ground that the complaint didn't name him but had only mentioned that two unidentified men had set fire.

When the case came up for hearing, the court directed the police to file its counter and allowed it to proceed with the investigation.

During the hearing, the court noted that the petitioner was a practicing advocate and member of the Bar Council. The court also took note of a large number of petitions filed by practicing advocates or those seeking to enrol, seeking to quash the criminal cases registered against them.

While the court agreed that mere registration of FIR alone should not attach any stigma to a person, the court added that when persons facing multiple criminal prosecutions became members of the Bar and occupied leadership positions in Bar Associations, it assumes significance. The court remarked that an increased number of office bearers with criminal antecedents would bring in a legitimate concern as to whether they would be in a position to safeguard the interest of the client.

The court thus opined that it was necessary to ascertain the number of advocates who were facing criminal prosecutions, the nature of allegations faced by them and whether such cases were registered prior to enrolment. The court also asked the Bar Council to ascertain the number of office bearers of various Bar Associations who are facing criminal cases and whether such cases arose out of professional activities, including protest-related incidents, or involve offences involving moral turpitude.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. C. Deepakkumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: B Jagadeeshwaran v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345

Case No: CRL OP No. 19749 of 2026