V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
A. Santhosh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.