Can Law Graduates With Pending FIRs Become Advocates? Madras HC Seeks Larger Bench View

The Madras High Court has decided to refer an important legal question to a larger bench — whether a person with pending criminal cases can be enrolled as an advocate by the State Bar Council.

The decision was taken by a Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Kalaimathi. The judges observed that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not give High Courts the power to add extra conditions for enrolment beyond what is already mentioned in the law.

The court noted that earlier, a Full Bench of the High Court had supported a Single Judge’s direction which barred persons with pending criminal cases from enrolling as advocates. However, the Supreme Court later clarified that courts cannot take over the role of the legislature by creating restrictions that are not provided under the Advocates Act.

Keeping this in mind, the Division Bench felt that the earlier directions need to be reconsidered. Since both a Division Bench and a Full Bench had earlier approved those directions, the judges said they could not pass a contrary order on their own. As a result, the matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice to form a larger bench to settle the issue conclusively.

The case arose from a petition filed by S. Bhaskarapandian. He completed his law degree in 1984 and later worked as a Village Administrative Officer. After retiring in 2014, he applied for enrolment as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. His application was not processed because two criminal cases were pending against him.

Bhaskarapandian argued that both cases had been at the FIR stage for nearly ten years, with no progress. He stated that his enrolment was blocked due to a 2015 order in S.M. Anantha Murugan v. The Chairman, where a Single Judge directed the Bar Council of India to prevent enrolment of law graduates facing pending criminal cases.

The court referred to another case, S. Manikandan v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council, where a Division Bench held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot automatically stop a person from enrolling as an advocate. Later, a Full Bench agreed with the Single Judge’s view but clarified that such a restriction was only temporary and asked the Bar Council of India to amend the law if needed.

Importantly, the court highlighted Section 24A of the Advocates Act, which clearly lists the disqualifications for enrolment. The judges stated that when Parliament has already defined the grounds of disqualification, courts cannot add new ones using their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The bench disagreed with the view that High Courts can impose enrolment conditions through rule-making powers under Section 34 of the Advocates Act. It held that this provision does not allow courts to frame rules affecting enrolment eligibility.

Given these conflicting views, the court concluded that the issue must be examined by a larger bench to bring legal clarity.