The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has raised serious questions over a long-standing judicial direction that bars law graduates with pending criminal cases from being enrolled as advocates. Hearing a writ petition filed by a retired government officer, the court said it may be time to rethink whether courts can add disqualifications that Parliament never wrote into the Advocates Act.
However, since earlier benches had already upheld the restriction, the court stopped short of granting relief and instead referred the issue to the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger bench.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, S. Bhaskarapandian, earned his law degree in 1984 but did not enrol as an advocate because he entered government service as a Village Administrative Officer. After retiring in January 2014, he applied for enrolment with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in July that year.
His application was not processed because two criminal cases were pending against him. Both cases, registered in 2013 and 2014, were still at the FIR stage, with no charge sheets filed even after nearly a decade.
Left without a decision, Bhaskarapandian approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Bar Council to enrol him as an advocate.
Earlier Court Directions and the Roadblock
The main hurdle before the petitioner was a 2015 ruling of the Madras High Court in S.M. Anantha Murugan v. Bar Council of India, which directed State Bar Councils not to enrol law graduates facing criminal cases, except in limited categories like minor bailable offences.
That direction was later affirmed by a Full Bench in 2017, though the Full Bench had clearly described it as a “temporary measure” and had asked the Bar Council of India to amend the law. No such amendment has been made so far.
Read also:- Compassionate Appointment Is Governed by Dependency, Not Will of Deceased: Allahabad HC
As a result, the restriction has continued for more than ten years, affecting applicants like the present petitioner.
Court’s Observations
The division bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Kalaimathi closely examined the Advocates Act, 1961. The court noted that Section 24A of the Act lists specific disqualifications for enrolment, such as conviction for offences involving moral turpitude or dismissal from government service on such grounds.
“Mere implication in a criminal case is not mentioned anywhere as a disqualification,” the bench observed, adding that courts cannot create new barriers when a valid statute already occupies the field.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the bench reminded that the right to practise a profession flows from Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and any restriction must be clearly provided by law.
The judges also highlighted the principle of presumption of innocence. As the bench put it, when the statute talks about conviction,
“it may not be open to the writ court to hold that even implication in a criminal case will operate as a bar for enrolment.”
Judicial Overreach and Limits of Court Powers
The court expressed disagreement with the view that earlier judicial directions could be treated as “rules” under Section 34 of the Advocates Act. It relied on Supreme Court judgments to underline that rule-making is a legislative or administrative function, not something that can be done through judicial orders.
“The court cannot usurp the functions assigned to the legislature,” the bench noted, citing decisions where even High Court rules were struck down for going beyond statutory limits.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Cracks Down on Deadly Nylon Manja: ₹25,000 Fine for Kite Flyers, ₹2.5 Lakh for Vendors
Despite these strong observations, the judges acknowledged that they were bound by the Full Bench ruling that had upheld the earlier direction.
Court’s Decision
Since the restriction on enrolment had been affirmed by a coordinate bench and a Full Bench, the court held it could not issue a contrary direction on its own.
Accordingly, the bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to consider constituting a larger bench to finally resolve whether pending criminal cases, without conviction, can legally block enrolment as an advocate.
The writ petition was thus disposed of with this direction.
Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman/Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 6986 of 2015
Date of Decision: 7 January 2026
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V.P. Rajan
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. Susikumar
