The Supreme Court slammed the BCI for recognising law colleges run out of “garages” and enrolling convicts, while allowing provisional enrolment of a CA with a pending case.
The Supreme Court came down sharply on the Bar Council of India (BCI), faulting the apex regulator for extending recognition to what it described as law colleges functioning out of “garages,” even as it took up the question of whether a person facing a pending criminal case may be denied enrolment as an advocate by a State Bar Council
A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan was hearing the matter.
In the course of the proceedings, the Bench observed that the regulator was itself admitting persons with criminal antecedents to the rolls,
“Bar Council of India is (already) enrolling convicts left, right and centre.”
At the centre of the case lies Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, which enumerates the grounds on which a candidate may be disqualified from enrolment.
The provision is, however, silent on whether the mere pendency of a criminal investigation or trial as distinct from a conviction can operate as a bar to enrolment. It is this legislative gap that the Court is now called upon to address.
The proceedings arise from the case of K.R. Sudersan, a 50-year-old chartered accountant who took a law degree later in life and sought to enrol as an advocate. His application was turned down by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which pointed to a pending criminal case against him involving allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating.
Those allegations are said to trace to his work as a chartered accountant, in which he is alleged to have advised a company later embroiled in financial irregularities.
The State Bar Council’s refusal rested on a 2015 ruling of a single judge of the Madras High Court, which had directed bar councils to withhold enrolment from law graduates with criminal cases pending against them. A Full Bench of the High Court subsequently upheld that direction as a temporary measure, intended to keep persons with criminal backgrounds out of the profession until Parliament stepped in to amend the law.
Having been denied enrolment, Sudersan initially moved the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition seeking a direction for his immediate enrolment. When the matter came up earlier, the Court issued notice but indicated that he could not simply seek enrolment without first assailing the Full Bench decision on which the Bar Council had relied. Acting on that indication, he filed a Special Leave Petition directly challenging the Full Bench order.
At Monday’s hearing, the Bench questioned whether a law graduate could be shut out of his livelihood merely on account of a pending first information report. Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for Sudersan, drew the Court’s attention to two developments that had occurred after notice was issued.
First, he submitted that the Madras High Court had itself since cast doubt on the earlier precedent, with a Division Bench observing that the High Court lacked the statutory competence to create fresh disqualifications beyond those set out in Section 24A.
The issue, he pointed out, now stands referred to a larger Bench of five judges. With the very foundation of the rule under reconsideration, Goel urged that his client was entitled to interim relief.
Second, counsel highlighted what he framed as an inconsistency on the part of the State Bar Council in matters of proportionality. He pointed out that the same body opposing his client had, in April, enrolled a convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi a person who had served 31 years in prison.
Contrasting that with his own client’s position, Goel submitted,
“One of the convicts of the assassination of our erstwhile prime minister who has served 31 years of conviction was enrolled in April. I am a chartered accountant. Allegation is that I advised a company which was involved in financial irregularity. And they are opposing me. As an interim measure, let me be enrolled.”
Persuaded to grant interim relief, the Court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to accept Sudersan’s provisional enrolment and to issue his enrolment certificate within two weeks. It further called upon the State Bar Council to file its counter affidavit within two months.
As the hearing drew to a close, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the BCI, sought to resist the course adopted by the Court.
He pressed for an early hearing and contended that Section 24A operated within a defined framework, adding that there was a larger concern surrounding the enrolment of persons facing criminal charges.
The Bench, however, took strong exception to that submission and turned the larger concern back on the regulator,
“The larger concern is Bar Council of India which grants recognition to colleges that are run in garages, that is the larger concern. Don’t tell us. You leave the court immediately, otherwise you will get into bigger trouble.”
The matter will be taken up further after the State Bar Council files its response.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE