Section 24A deals with disqualification for enrolment as a lawyer. As per the provision, no person shall be admitted as an advocate if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. A proviso is provided as per which the disqualification ceases to have effect after a period of 2 years since the release.

The Legislative and Legal Affairs Department, Union of India made the submissions before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, by way of a counter affidavit. The bench has been dealing with a plea filed by Congress MP R Sudha, challenging the enrollment of AG Perarivalan, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Sudha has approached the court seeking to declare Section 24A of the Advocates Act as unconstitutional so far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced with the death penalty and imprisonment for life to enroll as Advocates after a period of 2 years from their remission. She also sought to declare the enrolment of AG Perarivalan as illegal and void.

Sudha questioned the interpretation of the word “Release” under the Advocates Act and argued that the same should not include persons who are convicted and sentenced for death penalty and imprisonment for life.

It was argued that persons who are sentenced to death or life imprisonment are legally mandated to be confined in prison till their last breath. Thus, she argued that such persons could never fall under the purview of “release” to get the benefits of Section 24A of the Act. She thus argued that the Section was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in that it does not make any intelligible differentia between persons convicted for definitive terms and persons convicted for death penalty or imprisonment for life. Thus, she called for declaring the Section as unconstitutional to that extend.

Though Sudha had also sought for a CBI probe, the court had previously noted that there was no fraud which necessitated a CBI probe.

The Central Government has now submitted that the provision was valid and constitutional and intended to preserve the integrity, dignity, and public confidence of the legal profession. It was submitted that the provision does not impose a permanent bar but only a limited disqualification.

“The proviso to SubSection (1) does not impose a permanent bar, it only creates a limited disqualification which ceases after two years from release, dismissal or removal. This shows that Parliament intended to protect the dignity of the legal profession while still recognising that a person may reform and re-enter society after serving the statutory consequence of conviction,” the counter says.

The government thus submitted that Parliament had consciously balanced the requirement of maintaining the dignity and integrity of the legal profession with the principle that a statutory disqualification cannot continue indefinitely unless expressly provided in the Statute.

The government also submitted that if the petitioner's contention were to be accepted, it would create an additional category of disqualification and would amount to legislation by judicial interpretation.

The Government also submitted that it had no role to play in the enrolment process and any challenge to Perarivalan's enrolment would have to be dealt with by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Case Title: R Sudha v Union of India and Others

Case No: WP 19498 of 2026