Back
Section 24A Advocates Act: Centre Tells Convicts Can Reform and Re-enter
The has forcefully defended the constitutional validity of , arguing before the that the provision strikes a careful balance between protecting the and recognising a convict's potential for . In a counter affidavit filed before the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the government submitted that the limited disqualification imposed by the section—barring enrolment for two years after release—does not create a permanent stigma but instead allows individuals to reintegrate into society after serving their sentence.
The submissions came in response to a public interest litigation filed by Congress MP R Sudha, who challenged the enrolment of AG Perarivalan—a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case—as an advocate with the . Sudha sought to declare Section 24A unconstitutional to the extent that it permits persons sentenced to death or life imprisonment to enrol as advocates after a period of two years.
The Core of the Challenge
Section 24A disqualifies a person from being admitted as an advocate if they have been convicted of an offence involving . However, a proviso stipulates that this disqualification ceases to have effect after a period of two years from the date of the convict's "release". The petitioner argued that the term "release" cannot apply to those sentenced to death or life imprisonment, as such individuals are legally required to remain in prison for life. She contended that the Section is arbitrary and violative of , as it fails to make any between convicts serving definite terms and those serving life sentences or awaiting execution.
Sudha also questioned the interpretation of "release" in the context of a life convict whose sentence has been remitted, arguing that does not equate to full legal release. She further sought a probe into Perarivalan's enrolment, though the court had earlier noted that no fraud had been established to warrant such an investigation.
The Centre's Counter: and Balance
In its counter affidavit, the
firmly backed the provision, asserting that Parliament had consciously intended to avoid a
.
"The proviso to SubSection (1) does not impose a
, it only creates a limited disqualification which ceases after two years from release, dismissal or removal,"
the counter states.
"This shows that Parliament intended to protect the
while still recognising that a person may reform and re-enter society after serving the statutory consequence of conviction."
The government emphasised that a
cannot continue indefinitely unless expressly provided in the statute. It argued that accepting the petitioner's contention would effectively create an additional category of disqualification, amounting to
.
"If the petitioner’s contention were to be accepted, it would create an additional category of disqualification and would amount to legislation by judicial interpretation,"
the government submitted.
Further, the Centre clarified that it has no role in the enrolment process, and any challenge to Perarivalan's specific enrolment must be addressed by the and the .
Legal Analysis: Principles of Reform and
The government's stance reflects a broader jurisprudential shift towards recognising , even in the context of professional eligibility. The has consistently held that disqualifications based on past criminal conduct must be proportional and time-bound. In this case, Section 24A embodies that principle by limiting the disqualification to two years post-release.
The petitioner's argument—that life convicts and those sentenced to death are never truly "released"—raises a nuanced question about the definition of release under the Advocates Act. However, the Centre's counter underscores that Parliament deliberately chose not to distinguish between categories of convicts, instead allowing the two-year clock to run from actual release, whether on , , or completion of sentence.
From a constitutional perspective, the challenge under Article 14 requires the court to assess whether the classification in Section 24A—between those convicted of and those not—is reasonable and has a to the objective of maintaining professional standards. The Centre's justification that the provision balances with dignity may satisfy this test.
Impact on the Legal Profession
If the court upholds the Centre's view, it would reaffirm that former convicts who have demonstrated reform are not permanently barred from entering the legal profession. This could open doors for individuals like Perarivalan, whose has been politically and legally controversial, but who now seeks to practice law.
Conversely, a ruling in favour of the petitioner could create a new category of permanent disqualification for those serving life sentences or under death penalty, thereby limiting the scope of Section 24A. Such a decision might also prompt Parliament to revisit the provision.
The case also highlights the tension between the sanctity of the legal profession and the principle of second chances. Legal professionals and Bar Councils will be watching closely, as the outcome may influence future enrolment policies and the interpretation of "" in other contexts.
Conclusion
As the prepares to hear the matter further, the Centre's affidavit provides a robust defence of a provision that many see as a necessary safeguard against lifetime exclusion. The court's decision will not only determine Perarivalan's right to practice but also shape the boundaries of professional re-entry for all convicts in India. Legal observers note that the case raises fundamental questions about the purpose of punishment and the role of in a democratic society.
The matter, listed as WP No. 19498 of 2026, is likely to be heard in the coming weeks, with significant implications for the legal fraternity and the constitutional doctrine of equality.
