BCI recognising law colleges operating out of "garages"; enrolling convicts as lawyers: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the Bar Council of India (BCI) for allegedly granting licenses to what it called law schools "operating out of garages."

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan made the remark while dealing with the issue of whether a person with a pending criminal case can be barred from enrolling as an advocate by a State Bar Council.

"Bar Council of India is (already) enrolling convicts left, right and centre," the Court said during the hearing.

The core legal dispute centers around Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961. The provision outlines the disqualifications for enrolment. However, it remains silent on whether a mere pending criminal investigation or trial constitutes grounds for disqualification from enrolment as an advocate.

The present case concerns one KR Sudersan, a 50-year-old Chartered Accountant who recently completed his law degree. When he applied for enrolment, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry summarily rejected his application.

The State Bar Council cited a pending criminal case against him involving criminal conspiracy and cheating. The allegations reportedly stem from his professional capacity as a CA, where he is accused of advising a company involved in financial irregularities.

The Bar Council's rejection was rooted in a 2015 judgment by a single judge of the Madras High Court. That order directed bar councils to prevent the enrolment of law graduates with pending criminal cases. A Full Bench of the High Court later affirmed this as a "temporary measure" to keep people with criminal backgrounds out of the profession until parliament amended the law.

Aggrieved by the rejection, Sudersan first approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition seeking an immediate directive for his enrolment. During earlier proceedings, the top court issued notice in the matter. However, the Bench indicated that Sudersan could not just ask for enrolment; he needed to formally challenge the High Court's Full Bench decision that the Bar Council was relying on.

Taking the Court's cue, he subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) directly challenging that Full Bench order.

During today's hearing, the Supreme Court questioned whether a law graduate could be denied their livelihood merely because an FIR was pending against them.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for Sudersan, informed the Bench of two crucial events that happened after the top court issued notice.

First, he pointed out that the Madras High Court itself had recently questioned the older precedent. A division bench noted that the High Court lacks the statutory power to create new disqualifications outside of Section 24A. As a result, the High Court has now referred the entire issue to a larger five-judge bench. Since the underlying rule is currently under formal review, Goel argued his client deserves interim relief.

Second, Goel highlighted a glaring contradiction by the State Bar Council regarding proportionality. Pointing out that the same Bar Council opposing his client had recently enrolled a convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Goel argued,

"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."

The Court then asked the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to accept Sudersan's provisional enrolment in the interim and issue his enrolment certificate within 2 weeks.

It also asked the State Bar Council to file a counter affidavit within 2 months.

As the hearing concluded, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the BCI, attempted to push back. He requested an early hearing and argued that Section 24A operates within a certain framework, adding that there is a "larger concern" regarding the enrolment of individuals facing criminal charges.

The Bench took exception to this.

"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 Court retorted.

[Read Live Coverage]