The Supreme Court examined a challenge to restrictions on enrolling law graduates with pending criminal cases, raising sharp questions on legal backing and fairness.
Serious concerns regarding the entry of individuals with criminal backgrounds into the legal profession were raised before the Supreme Court, where a challenge to restrictions on enrollment was taken up for consideration.
It has been submitted by the Bar Council of India that individuals who were accused of criminal offenses had increasingly entered the field of law, while defending a judgment passed by the Madras High Court in 2017. The judgment had approved directions for the prevention of enrollment of law graduates who have pending criminal cases, pending changes in legislation.
The submission was met with pointed queries from the Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. It was questioned by the Court as to what action is taken against advocates who engage in criminal conduct after entering the profession. The absence of a clear statutory prohibition under the Advocates Act was also highlighted.
During the course of the hearing, it was put to the Court whether any express restriction is provided in the applicable law to deny enrollment based on the pendency of criminal cases. It was indicated by the Bench that it was not satisfied with the legislative backing for such restrictions.
Notice was subsequently issued on the petition, and the matter was directed to be tagged with a similar pending case.
The challenge has been brought by a petitioner, a chartered accountant by profession, who was denied enrollment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The rejection followed disclosure of a pending criminal case against him under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC.
It was contended by the petitioner that he had not been a party to the earlier proceedings before the High Court, yet his fundamental right to practice a profession of choice had been adversely affected. It was further argued that the High Court’s direction, initially described as a temporary measure, has continued for nearly a decade without legislative intervention.
The petitioner also emphasised that no conviction has been recorded against him, and that denial of enrollment on the basis of a pending case undermines the presumption of innocence.
The matter remains under consideration before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: K R SUDERSAN Versus THE CHAIRMAN BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR., Diary No. 12032-2026
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.