MADURAI: Expressing the need to revisit an order passed by a single judge in 2015, which introduced a condition that persons who have criminal cases pending against them cannot get enrolled as an advocate, a division bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court to consider constituting a larger bench to resolve the issue.
The division bench, comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and R Kalaimathi, did so in view of the contrary stand taken by the Supreme Court in two other cases. The bench was hearing a petition filed in 2015 by S Bhaskarapandian, a retired government employee, who was unable to enrol himself as an advocate owing to the above single judge order, as he had two criminal cases pending against him.
In the order, Justice N Kirubakaran had recommended amendment to the Advocates’ Act to incorporate provisions for disqualifying convicted persons and persons accused of offences, except bailable cases attracting punishment up to three years and compoundable offences involving matrimonial, family and civil disputes, either from getting into law colleges or entering into the legal profession. The order was affirmed by a full bench in 2016.
However, hearing Bhaskarapandian’s petition, the bench headed by Justice Swaminathan opined that the single judge order needs to be revisited in view of a contrary stand taken by the Supreme Court in two other cases. While the right to practise any profession is not an absolute right, the restriction must be expressly stated in the Advocates Act, 1961, or the Rules framed thereunder, and in the absence of such a restriction, it is not open to the court to impose one, the judges quoted from the verdict.
They further noted that the petitioner completed a law degree in 1984 and has been trying to enrol himself as an advocate since his retirement in 2014, but was unable to due to criminal cases against him. Since the single judge’s order has been upheld by the full bench, the judges said they cannot issue a contra direction and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.