Supreme Court Questions BCI's Opposition To Enrolment Of Advocate With Pending Criminal Case

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its opposition to the enrolment of law graduates facing pending criminal cases. The Court orally remarked that the bigger concern was the BCI granting recognition to law colleges run in garages, while failing to point to any statutory provision barring such enrolment.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan was hearing a petition filed by K.R. Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant who later obtained a law degree but was denied enrolment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry because a criminal case is pending against him.

The Madras High Court in 2015 via a Single Judge directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that law graduates facing pending criminal cases are not enrolled as advocates. A Full Bench in another case later affirmed the direction as a temporary measure to operate until Parliament amended the law.

Earlier this year, a division bench of the Madras High Court referred the correctness of that view to a larger bench after observing that the Advocates Act does not empower the High Court to prescribe an additional disqualification for enrolment beyond those contained in Section 24A.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel for Sudersan submitted that the petitioner had challenged the Full Bench decision before the Supreme Court as well as filed a writ petition seeking enrolment. He informed the Court that the Madras High Court has since referred the issue to a bench of five judges.

Goel also pointed out that one of the convicts in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who had undergone 31 years of imprisonment, was enrolled as an advocate in April 2026. Contrasting this with the less serious allegations against the petitioner, Goel sought interim relief for the petitioner.

He submitted, “I am a 50-year-old Chartered Accountant. The allegation against me is that I advised a company which was involved in financial irregularity. They are opposing my enrolment tooth and nail. As an interim measure, let me be enrolled. When the five-judge Bench will decide we don't know.”

Questioning the Bar Council's stand, Justice Mehta asked Senior Advocate S. Gurukrishnakumar, appearing for the BCI, why enrolment had been denied.

Gurukrishnakumar cited the Madras High Court's directions, while acknowledging that Section 24A doesn't provide for disqualification due to pending criminal case.

Justice Mehta observed that the restriction was outside the scope of the Act. “You are enrolling convicts right, left and centre, sir... In the entire country,” he remarked.

The Court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to provisionally enrol Sudersan and issue his enrolment certificate within two weeks. It granted two months' time to the BCI and the State Bar Council to file their counter affidavit and one month thereafter to the petitioner to file a rejoinder.

After dictating the order, Justice Mehta also orally observed, “We can allow it right now. The order is completely against the law.”

When Gurukrishnakumar submitted that there was a “larger concern”, Justice Mehta responded that the real larger concern was the BCI granting recognition to colleges that are run in garages.

“The Bar Council of India which grants recognition to colleges that are run in garages, that is the larger concern”, he said.

Justice Vikram Nath then quipped, “You leave the court immediately, otherwise you will get into bigger trouble.”

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 151/2026 Diary No. 6202 / 2026

Case Title – K.R. Sudersan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry