New Delhi: The supreme court raised concerns over the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) refusal to enrol a law graduate facing a pending criminal case. The Bench said the Advocates Act does not clearly disqualify a person from enrolment merely because a criminal case is pending, and asked the BCI to explain the legal basis for its stand.
Details of Advocate Enrolment Row
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by K.R. Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant who completed his law degree but was denied enrolment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry because a criminal case is pending against him.
The Bench comprised Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice R. Mahadevan.
Why Was Enrolment Refused
The Bar Council relied on earlier directions issued by the Madras High Court, which had asked State Bar Councils not to enrol law graduates facing pending criminal cases until Parliament amends the law. However, the petitioner argued that the Advocates Act, 1961, especially Section 24A, disqualifies only those who have been convicted for certain offences. It does not mention pending criminal cases as a ground for refusing enrolment.
Advocate Enrolment Row: Supreme Court Raises Tough Questions
During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the BCI’s stand and asked why enrolment had been denied when the law itself does not provide such a restriction.
The Court also observed that advocates convicted in serious criminal cases have been enrolled in the past, making the present refusal appear inconsistent.
Justice Mehta further remarked that the bigger concern was not this individual case but that the BCI was granting recognition to some law colleges allegedly operating from unsuitable facilities such as garages.
Advocate Enrolment Row: Petitioner’s Arguments
Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for the petitioner, argued that:
- The petitioner is a 50-year-old Chartered Accountant.
- The allegations against him relate to advising a company involved in an alleged financial irregularity.
- He has not been convicted in the criminal case.
- The Madras High Court itself has recently referred the larger legal issue to a five-judge Bench for reconsideration.
Goel also pointed out that one of the convicts in the assassination case of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was enrolled as an advocate after serving a long prison sentence, highlighting the difference between conviction and a mere pending case.
BCI’s Response
Senior Advocate S. Gurukrishnakumar, appearing for the Bar Council of India, said the Bar Council had followed the Madras High Court’s directions.
He also acknowledged before the Court that Section 24A of the Advocates Act does not expressly provide disqualification merely because a criminal case is pending.
Interim Relief Granted
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to provisionally enrol K.R. Sudersan as an advocate within two weeks and issue his enrolment certificate. The Court also granted:
- Two months to the BCI and the State Bar Council to file their counter affidavit.
- One month thereafter for the petitioner to file a rejoinder.
The provisional enrolment will remain subject to the final outcome of the case.
Read also: MP High Court Refuses to Quash Charges Against Civil Judge in Controversial Acquittal Case
