Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
A. Gnanasekar – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. No. 3133 of 2018, W.M.P. Nos. 3849, 4709 of 2018
Decided On : 18-06-2024
Writ Petition - Enrolment Disqualification - The court addressed the validity of the enrolment of the petitioner in the State Rolls, focusing on the disqualification arising from the petitioner's part-time teaching role while pursuing a law degree. The court emphasized that the Bar Council of India is responsible for adjudicating the disputed facts and urged for expedited consideration of the pending application.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the order of the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry regarding the validity of the petitioner's enrolment, based on allegations of disqualification due to his part-time teaching role while studying law.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from adjudicating the disputed facts and directed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents to the Bar Council of India, which is tasked with deciding the matter on its merits.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is disqualified for enrolment due to his part-time teaching while pursuing a law degree, and the appropriate forum for resolving this dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council of India is the appropriate authority to resolve disputes regarding enrolment qualifications and that the petitioner should present his case there.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the Bar Council of India to expedite the hearing of the pending application.
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 of India for disposal under Section 26 of the Advocates' Act. The application referred by the Bar council of Tamil Nadu is pending for consideration before the Bar council of India.
5. At this juncture, we are not inclined to adjudicate the disputed facts between the parties. Such disputed facts are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidence available on record. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to submit all his documents along with the statement of defence, if any to the Bar Council of India for the purpose of consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds including all the legal grounds. It is for the Bar council of India to adjudicate the issues and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending for along years, the Bar Council of India/1st respondent is requested to expedite the hearing and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible.
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
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
