V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The petitioner, whose application for enrolment as an advocate has been withheld by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to process his application.

2. Heard Mr. Raja Kalifullah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.Y. Masood, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent - Bar Council and Mr. I. Arockiasamy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. The petitioner completed his decree in Law from Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai in June 2014 and submitted an application in November 2014 to the Bar Council for enrolment. But, the application is not processed for the reason that a first information report lodged in Cr.No.307 of 2014 on the file of the third respondent is pending against him for the alleged offence under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

4. The Bar Council, in the past, did not have the practice of verifying the antecedents of persons, who apply for enrolment as advocates. But, by an order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14573 of 2014, a learned Judge of this Court issued directions to the Bar Council to verify the criminal antecedents of persons, who apply for enrolment. This was due to the fact that there had been an infiltration into this noble profession, of candidates with criminal antecedents, resulting in the erosion of ethical values. In the main petition, the learned Judge appears to have reserved orders on the question as to whether persons with criminal background could be allowed to be enrolled as members of the profession or not. This is why, when it came to light that the writ petitioner was implicated in a criminal case, his application for enrolment was withheld by the first respondent.

5. We do not wish to go into the larger question as to how persons with criminal background and how persons who studied in unrecognised institutions or in institutions which do not impart any formal education and training in law, have brought down the reputation of this profession, in view of the fact that the learned Judge has reserved judgment on this very same question and judicial propriety demands that we desist from entering into the same foray at this juncture. But, in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, we are of the view that it requires consideration, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances.

6. The petitioner appears to be the District Secretary of a political party. Therefore, he appears to have participated in an agitation, in which, the effigy of a political personality was allegedly burnt by him. Hence, a complaint under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Cr.No.307 of 2014 on the file of the third respondent on 4.10.2014. After enquiry, the police also appear to have filed a final report alleging as follows:

'That on 4.10.2014 at 10.AM, the petitioner burnt the effigy of Subramaniam Swamy near the bus stand at Thirukoilur, to protest against the conviction of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and thereby caused hindrance to traffic and to the members of the public, thereby committing an offence under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code.'

7. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the participation of a person in an agitation to advance a political cause and the burning of an effigy as part of the agitation, could be taken to be something that will make the offender, a person with criminal background so as to dis-entitle him from getting enrolled as an advocate or not.

8. Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code, with which the petitioner is charged, reads as follows:

"Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter:-

Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be liked to cause hurt or in