Hearing 30-40 criminal cases involving advocates daily: Madras HC calls for study on number of lawyers with criminal cases

Alarmed by the number of criminal cases against lawyers, the Madras High Court recently asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a survey on the number of practicing advocates in the State with criminal records [B Jagadeeshwaran v. State].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy stated in the order,

"On almost every working day, this Court is dealing with nearly 30 to 40 criminal matters involving practising advocates. If a substantial / large section of the legal fraternity is personally involved in criminal litigation, it has the potential not only to affect the image of the Bar, in the long run, the credibility of the justice delivery system itself."

The Court thus asked the Bar bodies to appoint researchers or form a committee to undertake a detailed survey regarding:

- The number of practising advocates facing criminal prosecutions;

- The nature of such offences;

- Whether the alleged offences occurred before or after enrolment as lawyers;

- The number of office-bearers of bar associations who are facing criminal cases;

- Whether such cases arise out of professional activities, including protest-related incidents, or involve offences involving moral turpitude or other serious crimes.

"Such an exercise would provide the necessary empirical data to enable the statutory authorities to consider framing appropriate rules or guidelines," the Court said.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Advocate B Jagadeeshwaran seeking quashing of a case registered against him at Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem.

After issuing notice in the plea, the Court proceeded to address a wider systemic issue of lawyers - especially office bearers of bar associations - facing criminal cases. It flagged a trend:

"In one category of cases, it is contended that the petitioners were already arrayed as accused in criminal cases before their enrolment as advocates and that such pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny them the right to practise the profession. In another category of cases, allegations are made that certain advocates continue to indulge in criminal activities even after enrolment. It is further noticed that, in several instances, such persons eventually become office-bearers / leaders of various Bar Associations."

The Court said that while registration of an FIR does not attach stigma to any person,

"However, when persons facing multiple criminal prosecutions become members of the Bar and thereafter aspire to occupy leadership positions in Bar Associations, the issue assumes a different dimension...If persons facing serious criminal allegations become office-bearers of Bar Associations and their number manifoldly increases in every bar, a legitimate concern arises as to whether they would be in a position to effectively safeguard the interests of the clients whom they represent and uphold the dignity and values expected of the legal profession."

The Court made it clear that its observations are not intended to cast any aspersion upon the petitioner or any other individual advocate.

The BCI and the State Bar Council have been impleaded in the matter. The Registry has been directed to serve them a complete set of papers. They have been given liberty to appear and place their views, suggestions, or practical difficulties regarding the directions.

The Court indicated it would issue further or modified directions on data collection and analysis after considering the Bar bodies' responses.

The matter is listed next on August 24.

Advocate C Deepakkumar appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate M Mohamed Riyaz appeared for the State.

HT to Advocate Kittuprabhakaran DC.

[Read order]