The Madras High Court has expressed concern over the increasing number of criminal cases involving practicing advocates and has urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well as the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a comprehensive survey to ascertain the extent of this issue. In the case of B Jagadeeshwaran v. State, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted the growing trend of criminal litigation involving legal practitioners, observing that the court handles 30 to 40 such cases daily.
Implications for the Legal Fraternity
Justice Chakravarthy remarked, “If a significant portion of the legal community is embroiled in criminal litigation, it risks damaging not only the Bar’s reputation but also the integrity of the justice system.” The court has called for a detailed analysis to determine the number of advocates with criminal records, the nature of the offenses, and whether these incidents occurred before or after their enrolment as lawyers. It also seeks to identify office-bearers of bar associations involved in such cases and whether these are related to their professional conduct or involve serious crimes.
Steps Towards Reform
The court emphasized that gathering empirical data is essential for the statutory bodies to consider implementing new guidelines or rules. Justice Chakravarthy issued these directives while presiding over a petition by Advocate B Jagadeeshwaran, who sought to quash a criminal charge filed against him in Salem. This broader inquiry aims to address the systemic issue of lawyers, especially bar association leaders, facing criminal charges.
Categories of Concern
The court noted two primary categories of concern: cases where individuals were already facing criminal charges before becoming advocates, and cases where lawyers continue criminal activities post-enrollment. There is a worrying trend of such individuals ascending to leadership roles within bar associations, raising questions about their ability to uphold the profession’s standards and the interests of their clients.
While acknowledging that an FIR does not inherently taint a person’s reputation, the court pointed out, “When individuals with multiple criminal prosecutions become members of the Bar and aim for leadership roles, it presents a unique challenge.” The court’s observations are not intended to cast doubt on any specific advocate but aim to address broader systemic issues.
More Read
Next Steps
The BCI and the State Bar Council have been added as parties in the case and are expected to present their perspectives, suggestions, or any operational challenges they might face concerning the court’s directives. The court plans to issue further instructions regarding data collection and analysis after considering the responses from the Bar bodies. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 24.
Advocate C Deepakkumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate M Mohamed Riyaz appeared for the State.
