Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convict Perarivalan's Enrolment As Advocate

The vacation bench of Justice S Sounthar and Justice PB Balaji has issued notice to the respondents – Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chairman of the Enrolment Committee, and Perarivalan, returnable by 4 weeks.

It may be noted that Perarivalan, who was released by the Supreme Court in 2022, enrolled as an Advocate on April 27 this year. There were mixed opinions about this, and some persons, including Congress MP R Sudha had written to the President of India, questioning Perarivalan's enrolment.

B Ravi Raja, a resident of Chennai, has filed the present plea, stating that the Supreme Court did not acquit Perarivalan but had only released him using an extraordinary constitutional relief under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The petitioner submitted that Perarivalan was an LTTE sympathiser and was convicted in the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, which is an offence of the highest degree of moral turpitude. He pointed out that as per Section 24A of the Advocates Act, no person shall be admitted as an advocate on the State roll if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

Raja further argued that Bar Council is not merely an enrolling authority but a statutory regulator entrusted with the duty to preserve the dignity, purity, and standards of legal profession. He pointed out that the Bar Council was a gatekeeper to the legal profession, ensuring that only persons with integrity, good character and professional suitability were admitted to the rolls of the advocate.

Raja submitted that the Bar Council's power of enrolment is coupled with a duty to scrutinise the antecedents of the applicant, existence of disqualifications and overall fitness to enter the profession. He further submitted that in the present case, the enrolment committee had mechanically interpreted the provisions of the Act, ignoring the gravity of the offence or public outrage, focusing solely on the two-year lapse condition.

It may be noted that, as per the proviso to Section 24A of the Act, a person's disqualification will cease to have effect after the lapse of two years since the release, remission, or removal. 

The petitioner submitted that Perarivalan's enrolment would undermine the public confidence in the legal profession since his remission does not erase his conviction.

The petitioner has thus sought for direction to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to restrict Perarivalan from practicing as an advocate. An interim relief has also been sought to suspend Perarivalan's enrolment till the disposal of the plea.

Case Title: B Ravi Raja v The Bar Council of India and Others

Case No: WP 18354 of 2026