IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
N. Kirubakaran, J.
S.M. Anantha Murugan – Appellant
Vs.
The Chairman, Bar Council of India and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 14573 of 2014
Decided On : 06-10-2015
Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 34 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 235 - Seeking amendment of main prayer - Chairman of BCI stated in a seminar conducted in Chennai in July that advocates are fake bad and non-practicing, indulging in illegal acts and more than persons sporting Court dress have no proper degrees - Present petition is aimed at blocking entry of criminal elements who do not possess basic qualifications and purchase law degrees which are generously sold for a song by Letter Pad law colleges located in other States especially in neighboring States except - Petitioner contends that many persons who are accused of heinous criminal offences without any basic qualification attendance and examination are able to secure law degrees and are trying to get enrolled by producing false police verification certificates suppressing their criminal background - Held, As a member of legal fraternity and higher judiciary for past years this Court has been witnessing steep fall in standards steady invasion of profession by criminal communal and extremist elements by purchasing law degrees without any basic qualifications and without attendance from Letter Pad Law Colleges and their attempt to disturb normal Court proceedings by boycotts exhibition of unruly high handed behavior inside and outside Court and committing offences and covering up by advocates label as explained in detail - It is very unfortunate that so-called Bar leaders and many of Bar Council members are said to be associated with these elements – Petition Dismissed
N. Kirubakaran, J.
1. "Neither Legal Profession is an asylum for criminals Nor law Degrees are shields for their criminal activities". Legal profession is blighted by the entry of criminal elements. It is seen from a number of cases coming up before this court and also from media reports that persons with criminal background getting law degrees claiming to be advocates are indulging in criminal activities including conducting "Kangaroo Courts", degrading and damaging the image of noble profession and for which we have to hang our heads down in shame. It is said that many persons claiming as leaders of the Bar are safeguarding and aiding those elements. The sorry state of affairs is not only due to a few members of the Bar, but also, because of entry of criminal elements into the profession by taking advantage of loop holes in 50 year old The Advocates' Act, 1961 and The Bar Council of India Rules regarding admission to law colleges and lack of effective fool proof procedure for enrolling law graduates as advocates. The present pitiable status of the legal profession could be attributed to the miserable failure of the Bar Council of India which is incapable of addressing the menace affecting the system. In fact, the Chairman of BCI stated in a seminar conducted in Chennai, in July 2015 that 30% advocates are fake, bad and non-practicing, indulging in illegal acts and more than 20% persons sporting Court dress have no proper degrees. The present petition is aimed at blocking the entry of criminal elements, who do not possess basic qualifications and purchase law degrees which are generously sold for a song by Letter Pad law colleges located in other States especially in neighboring States except Kerala. The petitioner contends that many persons, who are accused of heinous criminal offences, without any basic qualification, attendance and examination, are able to secure law degrees and are trying to get enrolled by producing false police verification certificates, suppressing their criminal background. The petitioner stated in paragraphs 3 to 5 are as follows:--
"3. It is submitted that the persons, who cannot get admission in the law College in Tamil Nadu Government, they are getting admissions and buying LLB degrees in the Private college in Karnataka, Andhra, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and other northern States. At the time of enrolment, the applicant shall produce no objection certificate received from the police department that no criminal case is pending against him as on date. On receiving such application, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry shall make cross verification regarding the genuine of certificates produced for getting enrolment.
4. It is submitted that while making such verification the police department shall verify that whether any criminal case is pending against him in any police station within Tamil Nadu The applicant who are involved in heinous offences shall not be permitted to enroll as Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.
5. It is submitted that on 02.08.2014 the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry proposed to enroll 900 members as Advocate. Further, 40% out of 900 persons are having criminal background and involved in heinous offences. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is proposed to enroll the persons who are involved in murder case, theft case and rape cases as advocates. Further so many persons purchased LLB degree in Karnataka, Andhra and other states are going to enroll in the Bar Council with criminal backgrounds."
A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs would shock everybody. It is alleged that out of 900 members, who are to be enrolled, about 40% of the persons are having criminal background, having been involved in heinous offences and they managed to obtain police verification certificates suppressing their criminal background. Two persons, namely, Elango, from Ramnad District, who is said to be having 14 criminal cases pending against him and Mr. Ali Siddick
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India reported in 1987 (1) SCC 395
Santhosh Antony Vareed vs. Dr. Ambedkar Law University
O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma reported in (2000) 7 SCC 264
Sudha v. President, Advocates’ Association
Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2001 SC 509
M.P. Thakkar in C Vs. Bar Council reported in 1982 (2) GLR 706
Vineet Narain v. Union of India reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226
Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs. Union of India reported in (1984) 2 SCC 244
Manikandan vs. Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
J. Alex Ponselvan Vs. Director General of Police
V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 176
Ex-cap Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2003 SC 739
Yogendra Singh Tomar vs. Bar Council for Uttarakhand
Santhosh Antony Vareed vs. The Registrar
Maharashtra vs. M.V. Dabholkar
Ex-Cap. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2003 SC 739
Jimmy Jahangir Madan vs. Boly Cariyappa Hindley reported in 2004 (12) SCC 509
Popular Muthiah vs. State reported in 2006 (7) SCC 296
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nairn reported in AIR 1964 SC 703
General Instruments Co. v. Union of India reported in (2008) 11 SCC 775
Baby vs. Travancore Devasvom Board and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 310
Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2006 (8) SCC 294
Union of India and another vs. Kriloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. re ported in 1996 (4) SCC 453
Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India reported in 1987 (1) SCC 395
S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 (8) SCC 279
State of UP vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. reported in 2011 (13) SCC 77
State of U.P. and others vs. Anilkumar Sharma and others reported in 2015 (6) SCC 716
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.