The Central Government has defended the constitutional validity of Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, before the Madras High Court, stating that the provision seeks to protect the dignity and integrity of the legal profession without permanently preventing a person from entering the profession after undergoing the consequences prescribed by law.
The submissions were made in a challenge concerning the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, as an advocate.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Congress MP R Sudha, who has challenged Perarivalan's enrolment with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Section 24A generally disqualifies a person from enrolment as an advocate if the person has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. However, its proviso states that the disqualification ceases to operate after two years from the person's release, dismissal or removal, as applicable.
Sudha has argued that the word “release” cannot cover persons sentenced to death or life imprisonment in the same manner as those sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment. According to her plea, treating the provision otherwise creates an unequal classification and raises concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
She has also sought a declaration that Perarivalan's enrolment is illegal and void.
Before a Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the Union Government maintained that Section 24A is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
The Centre said Parliament deliberately created a limited period of disqualification rather than imposing a permanent prohibition.
“The proviso to Sub-Section (1) does not impose a permanent bar, it only creates a limited disqualification which ceases after two years from release, dismissal or removal. This shows that Parliament intended to protect the dignity of the legal profession while still recognising that a person may reform and re-enter society after serving the statutory consequence of conviction.”
The government further submitted that the provision reflects a legislative balance between maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and recognising that statutory disqualification should not continue indefinitely unless Parliament expressly provides for it.
The Union Government also opposed interpreting Section 24A in a manner that would create an additional category of disqualification.
It submitted that accepting the petitioner's interpretation would effectively amount to adding a restriction that Parliament had not expressly included in the law.
The Centre further stated that it has no role in the enrolment process and that issues concerning Perarivalan's enrolment fall within the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The matter was before the Madras High Court on the challenge to Section 24A and Perarivalan's enrolment. The Union Government, through its counter affidavit, defended the provision as constitutionally valid and maintained that the enrolment process was for the concerned Bar Councils to deal with.
