JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit enrollment of the petitioner as an Advocate on the Roll of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.)

1. The petitioner has filed the above petition, seeking writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit enrollment of the petitioner as an Advocate on the Roll of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry within stipulated time.

2. The petitioner, after completion of B.Sc (Computer Science) and M.C.A, joined B.L Course in the Government Law College, Tirunelveli in the year 2015. After completion of Law Degree, he applied to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to enroll him as an Advocate. The respondents sent the petitioner's application for Police verification. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District has sent a proceedings on 20.11.2020 and a copy of the same was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was shocked to learn from the said proceedings that the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District had stated that totally, 85 criminal cases were lodged against the petitioner from 2017 to 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the respondents 1 and 2 and explained his position and requested them to consider his application to enroll as an Advocate for the very next enrollment. But, the petitioner was not called for the enrollment on 15.02.2021 and they have orally informed him that unless and until any direction was obtained from this Court, they will not permit him to enroll as an Advocate. Hence, the above petition.

3. When the above matter was taken up on 25.02.2021 by the First Bench of this Court (headed by the Honourable Chief Justice), it has been observed that in the light of how the Full Bench Judgment of 2015 has been read down in the judgment of K.Divya's case delivered by this Court on June 26, 2018, a serious question arises as to whether the mere lodging of a complaint indicating a cognizable offence against a prospective Advocate would deprive the candidate of the right or expectation to be enrolled as an Advocate.

4. When the matter was taken up again on 03.08.2021, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, has passed an order suo motu for impleadment of the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District as third respondent in the Writ Petition and directed the third respondent to file an affidavit with regard to the alleged complaints pending against the petitioner. Thereafter, considering the fact that most of the cases were lodged within the limits of Thoothukudi Police, Thoothukudi District, the Superintendents of Police, Tirunelveli District and Thoothukudi District and the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City have filed separate status reports. This Court, after perusing the status reports, found that the reports are bereft of particulars and hence, directed both the Superintendents of Police to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing on the next date of hearing and explain the cases registered against the petitioner.

5. When the matter was taken up on 07.09.2021, Mr.Manivannan, Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District and Mr.Jeyakumar, Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District appeared through Video Conferencing.

6. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.R.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Thilak kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for third respondent.

7. The main stand of the respondents 1 and 2 is that in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (6) CTC 22 [S.M.Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi] and the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in 2017 (5) CTC 113, since 85 criminal cases were registered against the petiti