Pending criminal case by itself no bar for Enrollment as Advocate, Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that unless a candidate has been convicted for the same at any stage, a pending criminal case would not disqualify him from enrollment as an advocate..Justice Sheel Nagu clarified as much while allowing a petition filed by an aggrieved candidate who was denied enrollment as an advocate by the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council on account of a pending criminal case dating back to 2006..Justice Nagu emphasised that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Act’) makes it amply clear that it is only on the conviction of a criminal offence or an offence involving moral turpitude that an advocate would be disqualified from membership in the Bar. A pending criminal case by itself is not sufficient to attract this disqualification..In its defence, the State Bar Council had placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Court in February 2017. In that case, the Court had upheld the disqualification of another advocate on account of a corruption case pending against him. Pursuant to the same, the Bar Council also submitted that it had passed a resolution in May 2017 with a view to implementing the February Judgment..In this backdrop, the State Bar Council argued that it was empowered to disqualify persons from being enrolled as advocates if they failed to meet the additional criteria prescribed by it. Such criteria may be prescribed by the Bar Council in exercise of their rule-making powers under Section 24 (1) (e) of the Act..However, Justice Nagu pointed out that the February 2017 judgment could be distinguished from the present case, as the advocate in that case had been convicted at least once for the corruption charges in question. The case against him had assumed the status of being a ‘pending’ one only on account of the conviction being challenged by the accused-advocate. On the other hand, in the instant case, the candidate had not been convicted of any offence as yet..Given the circumstances, Justice Nagu concluded that the petitioner-candidate could not be denied enrollment as an advocate..“… [the] petitioner merely being an accused in the aforesaid criminal case for offences where guilt is yet to be proved, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot deny entry to petitioner entry into the State Rolls as an Advocate for the petitioner merely being an accused in the aforesaid criminal case for offences where guilt is yet to be proved, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot deny entry to petitioner entry into the State Rolls as an Advocate for the simple reason that petitioner for the time being does not incur any disqualification u/s 24-A of Advocates Act.”.Further, the Court also emphasised that the Bar Council’s rule-making powers qua eligibility for enrollment as an advocate cannot supersede the criteria already laid down in the Act under Section 24A..“Before parting it would be essential to observe that the enabling provision u/S 24(1)(e) cannot override the provision of Section 24-A of Advocates Act which is couched in prohibitive language. Going by the Rules of interpretation of statutes the provision of Section 24-A of the Advocates Act cannot be supplanted by Section 24(1)(e), unless the Council can point out any other condition specified in rules framed by the State Bar Council under Chapter III of Advocates Act, which is not the case herein.”.The State Bar Council was given a month’s time to reconsider the petitioners’s application and allow his enrollment within a month if he was found not liable to be disqualified under Section 24A of the Act..Further, the Bar Council was also directed to pay the petitioner Rs 5,000 as compensation for illegally denying him enrollment. The petitioner was also given the liberty to move the civil court for further grant of compensation, depending on the facts and circumstances discerned by the appropriate civil forum..Read the Order: