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 
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.KALAIMATHI, JJ
S.Bhaskarapandian – Appellant
Versus
Chairman / Secretary Bar Council of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
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 ie., 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
The right to practice law must adhere to explicit legislative provisions, where judicial directives cannot impose additional disqualifications beyond those established in statutes.
The court affirmed that pending criminal cases can disqualify candidates from enrollment as advocates, emphasizing the need for integrity in the legal profession.
The pendency of a criminal case against an applicant serves as a bar to enrollment as an advocate before the Bar Council.
The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
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 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 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.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
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