Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and K.RAVICHANDRA BABU, JJ.
R.Nagendran - Petitioner
Vs.
The Chairman Tamil Nadu Bar Council High Court Building Parry's Corner and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.20130 of 2015
Decided On : 11.8.2015
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Thiruvengadam
For Respondents: Mr.S.Y.Masood, Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Spl.G.P.
The judgment established that the exercise of fundamental rights and duties under the Constitution should not be unduly restricted by pending criminal cases, especially when the activities are peaceful and aligned with constitutional principles.
Headnote:
Enrolment - Criminal Case - Chennai City Police Act, 1888, Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, Police Act, 1861, Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The court considered the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, and the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed. It also discussed the noble cause of the demonstration and the fundamental duties of citizens under the Constitution. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to process the application of the petitioner without reference to the pending criminal complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought enrolment as an Advocate, but the Bar Council did not entertain his application due to a pending criminal case against him for organizing a demonstration against the sale and consumption of liquor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's demonstration was a peaceful exercise of fundamental rights and a fulfillment of fundamental duties under the Constitution. It held that the criminal case should not bar his entry into the legal profession.
Issues: The issue was whether the pending criminal case against the petitioner should prevent his enrolment as an Advocate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the fundamental rights and duties under the Constitution, the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed on these rights, and the absence of any unlawful or violent activities in the petitioner's demonstration.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's application without reference to the pending criminal complaint.
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
The petitioner, whose application for enrolment as an Advocate was not entertained by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on account of the pendency of a criminal case against him, has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to enrol him.
2. Heard Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 5.
3. The petitioner completed a 3 year Law Degree from the Government Law College, Coimbatore in May 2014. It appears that while undergoing the course of study at the Government Law College, Coimbatore, he joined a group of students who organised a demonstration in front of a TASMAC retail vending outlet and Bar bearing No.1734, Lolly Road, Maruthamalai Main Road, Coimbatore. Immediately, the Police registered the First Information Report in Crime No.1190 of 2013 on 30.7.2013 against the entire group of students numbering about 24, including the petitioner herein. It appears that all the students who organised a protest against the sale and consumption of liquor were arrested in the afternoon and let off in the evening. On account of the pendency of the above criminal complaint, the Bar Council did not entertain his application for enrolment, in view of an order passed by a learned Judge of this Court in a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14573 of 2014. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.
4. Upon notice to the fifth respondent, namely the Inspector of Police, he has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the fifth respondent has confirmed that a criminal complaint in Crime No.1190 of 2013 was registered against the writ petitioner and 23 other students of the Government Law College, Coimbatore on 30.7.2013, for organising a demonstration in front of a TASMAC retail vending shop, to protest against the sale and consumption of liquor. It appears that a charge sheet has been filed in STC No.1493 of 2013, but the trial has not commenced. The writ petitioner is the ninth accused in the charge sheet.
5. Therefore, it is contended by Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel for the Bar Council that it is not possible for the Bar Council to enrol the petitioner, when a criminal case is admittedly pending against him. The Bar Council, according to the learned counsel, is bound by the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14573 of 2014 and that therefore, the Standing Counsel for the Bar Council contended that the petitioner may have to await the outcome of the criminal case.
6. We have carefully considered the above submissions.
7. It is true that by a series of orders passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14573 of 2014, this Court directed that the criminal antecedents of the candidates seeking enrolment should be verified by the Bar Council and that the nobility and purity of the profession cannot be allowed to be sullied by the entry of anti social elements into the profession. But, a careful consideration of the order dated 01.8.2014 passed by the learned Judge would show that the concern expressed by the learned Judge was with respect to anti social elements and persons with criminal antecedents trying to enter into the legal profession, with a view to have a protective gear around themselves. Therefore, the prohibitive order issued by the learned Judge has to be understood in the right perspective and cannot be applied blindfold to all types of cases where criminal complaints came to be registered against individuals.
8. As a matter of fact, this Bench had an occasion to consider two cases arising under extraordinary situations. One related to the registration of a criminal complaint against a person for burning the effigy of a political leader, while participating in a demonstration. Another related to a private complaint of defamation
