The Supreme Court of India has issued stern remarks to the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding its alleged practice of approving law colleges operating in inadequate facilities, such as garages. This criticism was voiced by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and R Mahadevan, as they addressed the contentious issue of whether individuals with pending criminal cases can be denied enrollment as advocates by State Bar Councils.
BCI’s Lax Enrollment Standards Under Scrutiny
The Court’s concerns centered around Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, which specifies the disqualifications for advocate enrollment. Notably, the Act does not address whether pending criminal investigations or trials constitute grounds for disqualification. The case in question involves KR Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant aged 50, who completed a law degree but faced rejection by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry due to a pending case alleging criminal conspiracy and cheating related to his professional role.
Judicial Precedents and Legal Arguments
The rejection was based on a 2015 single judge ruling from the Madras High Court, which was later upheld by a Full Bench as a temporary measure to exclude individuals with criminal backgrounds until legislative amendments. Sudersan subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking immediate enrollment, which led to the Court suggesting a challenge to the High Court’s Full Bench decision.
Sudersan, represented by Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, filed a Special Leave Petition directly challenging the Full Bench order. Goel highlighted two key developments since the Supreme Court’s notice issuance: the Madras High Court questioning its previous ruling and referring the issue to a five-judge bench, and the Bar Council’s contradictory stance by recently enrolling a convict involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Supreme Court’s Interim Relief and Warning
In response, the Supreme Court granted Sudersan provisional enrollment, demanding the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry provide his enrolment certificate within two weeks. Additionally, the State Bar Council was instructed to submit a counter affidavit within two months. As the hearing concluded, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the BCI, sought an early hearing and expressed concerns over the enrollment of individuals with criminal cases.
More Read
However, the Bench responded sharply, emphasizing the greater issue of the BCI’s approval of law schools with inadequate resources. Justice Vikram Nath stated, “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.”
