The right to practice law must adhere to explicit legislative provisions, where judicial directives cannot impose additional disqualifications beyond those established in statutes.

ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner obtained law degree in the year 1984. However, he did not get enrolled as an advocate in view of his appointment as Village Administrative Officer. He retired from service on 30.01.2014. Thereafter, he wanted to enrol himself as an advocate. He submitted his application before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 23.07.2014. His application could not be processed on account of his implication in two criminal cases i.e. Crime No.28 of 2013 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai and Crime No.94 of 2014 on the file of the Koodal Pudhur Police Station. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to enrol him as an advocate on their rolls.

2. The petitioner faces a Himalayan impediment. A learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in S.M. Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman, (2015) 6 CTC 22 had directed as follows :

“(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 Advocate's Act & Bar Council of India Rules.”

When a Division Bench of this Court in S. Manikandan v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council in WP No. 2309 of 2016 on 21.10.2016 took a view that mere implication in a criminal case will not come in the way of one's enrolment as an advocate, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Hon'ble Full Bench in the decision reported in Chairman Vs. S.M. Anantha Murugan, (2017) 5 CTC 113 held as follows :

“19. By way of conclusion, we answer the reference in the following manner:

(I) Direction No.3 issued by the learned single Judge in S.M. Aantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, (2015) 6 CTC 22 holds good. 

(II) The Bar Council of India is directed to bring forth appropriate amendment as agreed by it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(III) Direction No.3 issued by the learned single Judge is only a temporary measure.

(IV) The Judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.P.No.2309 of 2016, dated 21.10.2016 (S. Manikandan Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council, Chennai) has to be understood in the context of Direction No.3 issued by the learned single Judge in S.M. Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, (2015) 6 CTC 22.

(V) However any such admission if made already shall not be disturbed.”

3. Let us come back to the facts on hand. The petitioner's counsel states that for the last ten years, the criminal cases registered against the petitioner continue to remain at the FIR stage. The prosecution had not even taken off. The final reports are yet to be filed. The petitioner is unable to enrol himself as an advocate on account of the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge which was confirmed by the Full Bench also. It is relevant to note that the Full Bench took the view that the direction itself is a temporary measure. But the fact remains that the Bar Council of India has not issued any direction in this regard and the direction of the learned Single Judge continues to hold the field for more than a decade. However, its effect has been sought to be overcome by issuing directions in individual cases from time to time.

4. Right to practise any profession is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is of course not an absolute right but subject to reasonable rest