The court mandated strict scrutiny of advocate enrollment applications, particularly for those with pending criminal cases or bogus qualifications, emphasizing the need for integrity in the legal profession.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 25.09.2024 to cancel the enrollment of the 4th respondent as an advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

2. The complaints of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is facing criminal cases in Crime No.376 of 2022 and Crime No.292 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Tiruvallur District. The 4th respondent is presently holding the post of Vice President at Koduvalli Panchayat.

3. The petitioner states that the law degree obtained by the 4th respondent itself is bogus and it was obtained from an University from Andhra Pradesh.

4. The 1st respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, without conducting verification properly, enrolled the 4th respondent as an advocate. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Bar Council for cancelling the enrollment. Since no action has been taken, the present Writ petition came to be instituted.

5. It is further contended that the 4th respondent has not submitted any declaration before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which is also to be looked into.

6. The issues regarding enrollment of an advocate in the Bar Council during the pendency of the criminal case against such person is no more res integra. In the case of N.Santhosh Kumar Vs. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in W.P.No.19064 of 2024, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein under

“.........In the case of S.M.Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman and others reported in (2015) 6 CTC 22, a direction has been issued by the High Court in paragraph 101(3) as under:-

“101. Hence, this Court passes the following directions:

1) .....

2) .....

3) Bar Council of India shall direct the State Bar Councils not to enrol any law graduate with pending criminal cases except bailable cases attracting punishment upto three years and compoundable offences involving matrimonial, family and civil disputes, till the changes are brought in The Advocates’ Act &Bar Council of India Rules.”

5. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case cited supra, is affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi Vs S.M.Anantha Murugan, Advocate reported in 2017 (5) CTC 113. Paragraph 18 of the Full Bench judgment reads as under:- “18. Ever increasing criminalisation of the Bar is not in dispute as recorded by the learned Single Judge in S.M.Anantha Murugan V. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, 2015 (6) CTC 22. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that he has recommended appropriate measures to be taken by the Bar Council of India in this regard. Pending the recommendation, it was ordered to ensure that candidates with serious offences are not allowed to be enrolled. After all, every stakeholder is interested in upholding the dignity of the profession. It is no doubt true that there is no provision as of now barring such persons from getting enrolled. But then, there is no quibble over the power of the Bar Council of India to act accordingly. That is precisely the reason why a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge. When once the right to practice is governed and controlled by a Statute, then it may not be claimed as absolute. The learned Single Judge has exercised his power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which we do not feel arbitrary. Had the recommendation been considered, by this time, the issue would have been resolved finally one way or other. The Division Bench has not taken into consideration the detailed Order passed by the learned Single Judge in this regard though it may not be binding. The fact remains that the said decision insofar as the issue is concerned, has become final and the Bar Council of India is willing to give its conscious consideration to it. Even the Division