Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
A. Gnanasekar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.07.2016 in T.N.E.C.R. No. 4 of 2015 communicated to the 1st respondent on 30.11.2016 quash the same.
1. The order of the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry dated 25.07.2016 in the T.N.E.C.R. No. 4 of 2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Based on the complaint, action was initiated by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to test the validity of the enrolment of the writ petitioner in the “State Rolls.” The allegation against the writ petitioner was that he had undergone the regular law course, while serving as a Commerce Teacher in a school, which is a disqualification for enrolment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would oppose by stating that he was taking classes as part-time teacher in the school. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified for enrolment.
4. Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit that the application has already been sent to the Bar council
The Bar Council of India has the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding the enrolment of advocates, and the court will not intervene in disputed factual matters pending before it.
The eligibility for enrollment as an advocate under the Advocates Act is contingent upon compliance with specific disqualifications, particularly concerning concurrent employment in government servic....
The pendency of a criminal case against an applicant serves as a bar to enrollment as an advocate before the Bar Council.
The court established that legal provisions cannot retroactively invalidate enrolments completed before the enactment of new educational rules.
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.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 establishes a mandatory appellate process to the Supreme Court for aggrieved parties in Bar Council proceedings, which must be adhered to instead of seeking wri....
A prima facie opinion by the Bar Council is not subject to judicial review unless it is shown to be issued by an incompetent authority or is tainted with malafides.
Judicial review by the High Court does not extend to adjudicating the merits of disciplinary complaints against lawyers, which must be handled by the Bar Council.
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
