The Supreme Court has questioned the Bar Council of India over its claim that “criminals have started entering the legal profession” while defending denial of enrollment to law graduates with pending criminal cases. The Court said such a restriction may not be valid without a clear law under the Advocates Act.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition challenging a Madras High Court judgment that restricts the enrollment of law graduates who are facing serious criminal charges. During the hearing, the Bar Council of India (BCI) defended the rule and said that “criminals have started entering the legal profession.”
However, the Supreme Court appeared unconvinced and indicated that it would closely examine whether such restrictions can be imposed without proper legal backing, especially when they may affect a person’s fundamental right to practice law as a profession.
ALSO READ: “More Women Are Joining the Bar, But Few Continue”: CJI Surya Kant Raises Serious Concern
The case comes from a 2017 Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court. In that decision, the High Court had supported an earlier direction that State Bar Councils should not enroll law graduates who have serious criminal cases pending against them.
The rule allowed enrollment only in cases involving minor and bailable offences, and even then, the restriction was supposed to continue only until proper legislative changes were made. However, even after several years, the rule is still being followed, which has now raised serious legal questions.
The present case was filed by a chartered accountant who later completed a law degree and wanted to enroll as an advocate. However, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry refused to enroll him because a criminal case is pending against him under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC.
The petitioner argued that he has not been convicted in the case and is still only an accused. He said that continuing to deny enrollment on the basis of a pending case is unfair and violates his right to choose and practice a profession. He also argued that what was earlier called a temporary measure has now become a permanent restriction, which is unreasonable and legally questionable.
When the matter came before the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta raised serious concerns about the rule and the way it is being implemented. The judges questioned both the logic behind the restriction and the legal authority under which such a rule is being enforced.
When the Bar Council of India tried to justify the restriction, the Court asked an important question to test the logic of the rule. The Bench asked,
“What action have you taken against those who become criminals after joining the profession?”
This question highlighted the Court’s concern that the rule only targets people before enrollment but does not clearly address misconduct after a person becomes an advocate.
The Supreme Court also questioned the legal basis of the restriction and pointed out that there is no clear provision in the Advocates Act that allows such a blanket ban on enrollment merely because a criminal case is pending.
The Court indicated that in the absence of a clear statutory provision, such restrictions may not be legally valid, especially when they affect the fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court’s observations suggest that it will examine whether professional bodies like the Bar Council can impose such restrictions without a proper law passed by Parliament. The case is important because it raises larger questions about the rights of law graduates, the powers of the Bar Council of India, and the balance between maintaining professional standards and protecting fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court’s final decision in this case could have a major impact on enrollment rules for advocates across India, especially in cases where criminal charges are pending but no conviction has taken place.
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI Surya Kant
