Can persons with pending criminal cases be enrolled as advocates? Madras HC larger bench to decide

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought reconsideration of a long-standing judicial direction that bars the enrolment of law graduates with pending criminal cases, observing that such a restriction may not be supported by the Advocates Act, 1961 [Bhaskara Pandian Vs Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry].

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi, in an order dated January 7, 2026, directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench to reconsider the earlier judicial direction.

"The direction given in S.M.Anantha Murugan case deserves to be revisited. Since a coordinate Division Bench as well as a Full Bench have affirmed the said direction, it would not be open to us to issue any contra direction. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider constituting a Larger Bench for resolving the issue," the Court said.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by S Bhaskarapandian, who sought a direction to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to enrol him as an advocate based on his application submitted in July 2014.

Bhaskarapandian had obtained his law degree in 1984 but did not enrol earlier since he entered government service as a Village Administrative Officer. After retiring in January 2014, he applied for enrolment, which was not processed due to two criminal cases registered against him that remain at the FIR stage.

Referring to the earlier line of cases that restrict enrolment of candidates facing criminal proceedings, the High Court noted that such an embargo continues despite being described as a temporary measure.

The Court observed that the petitioner faced what it termed a “Himalayan impediment” due to the continued operation of such restrictions.

The Division Bench further expressed reservations about whether such restrictions could be introduced through court orders.

“When a validly passed legislation is occupying the field, it may not be open to the writ court to prescribe further disqualifications in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," it opined.

The Court referred to Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, which lists only criminal convictions (not the pendency of a criminal case) as grounds for disqualifying a person from enrolling as a lawyer. It added,

“When the statutory provision talks about conviction as an impediment, it may not be open to the writ court to hold that even implication in a criminal case will operate as a bar for enrolment.”

The Bench also underscored the importance of the presumption of innocence, noting:

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that presumption of innocence is a human right.”

Disagreeing with the view that earlier judicial directions could be treated as rules framed under the Advocates Act, the Court stated:

“By no stretch of imagination, a judicial order passed by a Single Judge can partake the character of a rule made by the High Court.”

The Court concluded that the earlier direction deserves to be revisited in light of subsequent Supreme Court judgments, including one where the top court refused to debar legislators from practicing as advocates.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate VP Rajan

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was represented by Advocate C Susikumar

[Read Order]