Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
S. Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Represented by its Secretary – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate criminal action against the 5th respondent for his illegal activities by misusing the advocate profession under penal laws based on the complaint made by the 1st respondent dated 13.07.2021.
The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate criminal action against the 5th respondent for his illegal activities by misusing the advocate profession under penal laws based on the complaint made by the 1st respondent dated 13.07.2021.
2. The 1st respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would submit that the 5th respondent has not been enrolled as an Advocate in the State Roll. The 5th respondent is running Travels. The 5th respondent is misusing Advocate Emblem by affixing the same in his vehicles. A complaint has been made against the 5th respondent before the Police and no action was taken. Therefore, the present
The misuse of the advocate emblem by an individual not duly enrolled as an advocate constitutes a violation of legal provisions, warranting investigation and action by relevant authorities.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
Full disclosure of criminal involvement is essential for enrollment as an Advocate, and failure to disclose such information can lead to dismissal of the application.
The pendency of a criminal case against an applicant serves as a bar to enrollment as an advocate before the Bar Council.
The Bar Council is mandated to investigate complaints against advocates and enforce prohibitory orders to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
The court affirmed that pending criminal cases can disqualify candidates from enrollment as advocates, emphasizing the need for integrity in the legal profession.
The court established that the writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel law enforcement to act on pending criminal cases, and that complaints against advocates should be addressed through the Bar Co....
The Bar Council does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints against an Advocate Commissioner; such complaints must be addressed to the court that appointed the Commissioner.
The right to practice law must adhere to explicit legislative provisions, where judicial directives cannot impose additional disqualifications beyond those established in statutes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article