Madras High Court
Boopathi vs The Chairman on 24 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.31678 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :24.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.31678 of 2024
Boopathi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
High Court Building,
Chennai – 104.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vengal Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
4.Sarathkumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1 st respondent to
consider petitioner representation dated 25.09.2024 to cancel the enrollment of
4th respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 11
W.P.No.31678 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan
For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar,
Standing Counsel for Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu (for R1)
Mr.P.Balathandayudham
Special Government Pleader (for R2)
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the 1st respondent to
consider the representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 25.09.2024 to
cancel the enrollment of the 4th respondent as an advocate in the Bar Council
of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
2. The complaints of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is facing
criminal cases in Crime No.376 of 2022 and Crime No.292 of 2022 on the file
of the Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Tiruvallur District. The 4th
respondent is presently holding the post of Vice President at Koduvalli
Panchayat.
3. The petitioner states that the law degree obtained by the 4th
respondent itself is bogus and it was obtained from an University from Andhra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pradesh.
4. The 1st respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
without conducting verification properly, enrolled the 4th respondent as an
advocate. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Bar Council for
cancelling the enrollment. Since no action has been taken, the present Writ
petition came to be instituted.
5. It is further contended that the 4th respondent has not submitted
any declaration before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which is also to be
looked into.
6. The issues regarding enrollment of an advocate in the Bar Council
during the pendency of the criminal case against such person is no more res
integra. In the case of N.Santhosh Kumar Vs. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
and Puducherry in W.P.No.19064 of 2024, the relevant paragraphs are
extracted herein under
“.........In the case of S.M.Anantha Murugan
Vs. The Chairman and others reported in (2015) 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CTC 22, a direction has been issued by the High
Court in paragraph 101(3) as under:-
“101. Hence, this Court passes the following
directions:
1) .....
2) .....
3) Bar Council of India shall direct the State
Bar Councils not to enrol any law graduate
with pending criminal cases except bailable
cases attracting punishment upto three years
and compoundable offences involving
matrimonial, family and civil disputes, till the
changes are brought in The Advocates’ Act &
Bar Council of India Rules.”
5. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in the case cited supra, is affirmed by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of The Chairman, Bar
Council of India, New Delhi Vs S.M.Anantha Murugan,
Advocate reported in 2017 (5) CTC 113. Paragraph 18 of
the Full Bench judgment reads as under:- “18. Ever
increasing criminalisation of the Bar is not in dispute as
recorded by the learned Single Judge in S.M.Anantha
Murugan V. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New
Delhi, 2015 (6) CTC 22. A perusal of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge would show that he has
recommended appropriate measures to be taken by the Bar
Council of India in this regard. Pending the
recommendation, it was ordered to ensure that candidates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with serious offences are not allowed to be enrolled. After
all, every stakeholder is interested in upholding the dignity
of the profession. It is no doubt true that there is no
provision as of now barring such persons from getting
enrolled. But then, there is no quibble over the power of
the Bar Council of India to act accordingly. That is
precisely the reason why a direction has been issued by the
learned Single Judge. When once the right to practice is
governed and controlled by a Statute, then it may not be
claimed as absolute. The learned Single Judge has
exercised his power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, which we do not feel arbitrary. Had the
recommendation been considered, by this time, the issue
would have been resolved finally one way or other. The
Division Bench has not taken into consideration the
detailed Order passed by the learned Single Judge in this
regard though it may not be binding. The fact remains that
the said decision insofar as the issue is concerned, has
become final and the Bar Council of India is willing to
give its conscious consideration to it. Even the Division
Bench seeks to make a difference between different set of
offences. In that sense, there is not much of difference in
the thinking process adopted by the learned Single Judge
in S.M.Anantha Murugan V. The Chairman, Bar Council
of India, New Delhi, 2015 (6) CTC 22 and the Division
Bench in S.Manikandan V. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar
Council, Chennai, W.P.No.2309 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016.
The observation of the Division Bench that mere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
registration of F.I.R would not take away the right to get
enrolled has to be seek in its own context. Suffice it is to
state that the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge
and the observation made by the Division Bench on
30.10.2015 have not been brought to the knowledge of the
Division Bench. Thus, Direction No.3 issued by the
learned Single Judge would stand.”
6. The Full Bench judgment in unequivocal terms
held that the direction No.3 issued by the learned Single
Judge in Anantha Murugan's case [cited supra] would
stand. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge in
Anantha Murugan's case [cited supra] was confirmed by
the Full Bench directing the State Bar Council not to enroll
any law graduate with pending criminal cases except
bailable cases attracting punishment upto three years and
compoundable offences involving matrimonial, family and
civil disputes, till the changes are brought in The
Advocates’ Act & Bar Council of India Rules. Admittedly,
no amendment has been brought in nor the Bar Council of
India issued any Rules. However, the said judgment
remains intact and to be followed by all concern. The Full
Bench also confirmed the said directions and therefore, it
becomes law as far as the enrollment of a person in the
State roll is concerned.
7. Purity in profession is the object and in respect of
the High Court directions, it is relevant to consider Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34 of The Advocates Act, which provides power of High
Courts to make Rules. Sub-Section (1) contemplates that
the High Courts may make Rules laying down the
conditions, subject to which an advocate shall be permitted
to practice in the High Court and the Courts Subordinate
thereat. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the judgment
is to be construed as Rules within the ambit of Section 34
of The Advocates Act and thus the said conditions
confirmed by the Full Bench should operate and to be
implemented by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry scrupulously.
7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that many number of
persons are submitting applications with bogus law degree and enrolling
themselves as advocates, with an idea to secure social status and for different
purposes. Therefore, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is
expected to be more cautious and vigilant, while scrutinizing the applications
submitted for enrollment. All enrollment applications ought to be thoroughly
scrutinized and by obtaining necessary all No Objection Certificates (NOC) or
details from the competent authorities, Universities etc., wherever required.
8. In respect of bogus law degree or invalid law degree, a thorough
enquiry is to be conducted before admitting the applicant for enrollment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Regarding the criminal cases registered against the applicants, necessary inputs
must be obtained from the police authorities and other authorities in the manner
known to law. Once an advocate is enrolled, the complaint seeking cancellation
of enrollment must be entertained and to be processed. In this context, the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is directed that, on receipt of any
complaint regarding cancellation of enrollment, a report is to be prepared with
all relevant facts and the documents and the same must be sent to the Bar
Council of India for passing final orders. There should not be any delay in
sending such reports to the Bar Council of India, since the delay in dealing with
such complaints regarding fraudulent enrollment would result in miscarriage of
justice and the person who is otherwise might not entitled to practice as a
lawyer will be continuing as a lawyer, which would be detrimental to the
public/litigants at large. The professional conduct required that the enrollment
must be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.
Once a complaint is received and if the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry found that there is a prima-facie case or criminal cases of serious
nature are registered and pending against such person, Bar Council is
empowered to suspend the practice of a lawyer during the pendency of the
complaint, which is to be forwarded to the Bar Council of India for initiation of
all appropriate actions to cancel the enrollment. Therefore, at the first instance,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry should act for suspending the
practice of such advocate, if there are sufficient reasons and materials available
on record to pass such an order. In all other cases, after collecting necessary
documents and inputs, the report is to be submitted to the Bar Council of India
for conducing enquiry and to pass final orders. The procedures contemplated
must be followed scrupulously, so as to ensure that ineligible advocates are not
allowed to practice legal profession.
9. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is expected to be
sensitive in the matter of enrollment of lawyers in the State roll and initiate all
appropriate actions for conducting thorough enquiry before enrollment and to
deal with the complaints promptly and vigilantly, without causing any undue
delay and issue interim orders, wherever appropriate and initiate all further
actions by following the due process as contemplated under the Act and Rules.
10. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the 1st respondent is
directed to expedite the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the manner
known to law and the said exercise is directed to be completed within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
24.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
gd
To
1.The Chairman,
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
High Court Building,
Chennai – 104.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vengal Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gd
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
