Criminals Started Coming Into Legal Profession, BCI Tells Supreme Court

Criminals have started coming to the legal profession, said the Bar Council of India in the Supreme Court today, defending a judgment of the Madras High Court barring the enrollment of law graduates with pending cases related to serious offences.

The Court however issued notice on a plea challenging the 2017 Madras High Court judgment which approved a direction for State Bar Councils to not enroll any law graduate with pending criminals cases (subject to few exceptions) till appropriate changes are brought in by the legislature.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta considered the matter.

During the hearing, the counsel for the Bar Council of India attempted to justify the High Court ruling by saying, "All criminals started coming into this profession my lords". However, cutting him short, Justice Nath retorted, "And what happens if after coming into the profession, they become criminals? What do you do against them? Tell us first, what action have you taken against those who become criminals after joining the profession?"

"Where is the prohibition in the Advocates Act? Is there any prohibition?" Justice Mehta added.

Ultimately, the bench issued notice and tagged the case with a pending matter.

Briefly put, the petitioner, a chartered accountant by profession, is aggrieved by the 2017 judgment of the High Court in Chairman v. S.M. Anantha Murugan, wherein the Full Bench approved a Single Bench's direction (of 2015) to the BCI that it convey to all State Bar Councils that they must not enroll any law graduate with pending criminal cases, except bailable cases attracting punishment upto 3 years and civil disputes, till appropriate changes are brought in by the legislature.

With an aim to practice law and understand nuances of financial laws, he entered into a law college and enrolled in the academic year 2019-20. Later, when he applied for enrolment as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the application form had a column asking whether any case was pending against him. The petitioner answered the same by mentioning that summons had been served upon him in a case. Thereafter, as required, he submitted the chargesheet. Later, the Enrolment Committee rejected his plea to enroll.

The petitioner mentions that he was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court, but his fundamental right to practice a profession of his choice has been curtailed by the impugned judgment, as the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has declined to enroll him in view of a case pending against him under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC.

Initially, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court wherein, on February 12, 2026, the Court gave him to time to obtain further instructions in respect of the High Court decision. Now, he has challenged the 2015 judgment of the Single Bench.

It is contended that what the Single Bench's direction to BCI was taken by the Full Bench of the High Court to be a "temporary measure", but the same is continuing even a decade later. The petitioner further highlights that in the case against him, he has not been convicted.

Case Title: K R SUDERSAN Versus THE CHAIRMAN BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR., Diary No. 12032-2026