New Delhi, July 21 : The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong concern over the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) recognition of certain law colleges allegedly operating from inadequate premises, including garages, while also questioning the council’s decision to deny enrolment to a law graduate solely because a criminal case against him remains pending.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan made the observations while hearing a petition filed by chartered accountant K. R. Sudersan. The petitioner, who later completed a law degree, was refused enrolment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry due to the pendency of criminal proceedings against him.
SC Questions BCI’s Interpretation of the Law
During the hearing, the bench indicated that the petitioner’s enrolment could be permitted immediately, observing that the Bar Council’s decision appeared inconsistent with the provisions of the Advocates Act.
“The order is completely against the law,” the bench remarked while addressing senior advocate S. Gurukrishnakumar, who represented the Bar Council of India.
When the Bar Council argued that the issue involved a broader public concern, Justice Sandeep Mehta responded that the more pressing issue was the recognition granted to institutions lacking basic academic infrastructure.
Recognition of Poor Infrastructure Draws Sharp Remarks
Justice Mehta criticised the approval of law colleges allegedly functioning from unsuitable locations such as garages, stating that such recognition posed a far greater challenge to the quality of legal education.
The judge also observed that the Bar Council had enrolled convicted individuals in several cases across the country, making its opposition to the petitioner’s enrolment appear inconsistent.
The court’s remarks highlighted growing concerns regarding the standards of legal education and regulatory oversight exercised by the Bar Council.
Petitioner Seeks Interim Permission to Practise
Appearing for Sudersan, senior advocate Nikhil Goel informed the court that his client had challenged an earlier Madras High Court ruling before the Supreme Court and had separately filed a writ petition seeking enrolment as an advocate.
He pointed out that the Madras High Court has since referred the legal issue to a five-judge bench for authoritative determination.
Explaining the petitioner’s circumstances, Goel said Sudersan is a 50-year-old chartered accountant whose alleged involvement stems only from professional advice provided to a company accused of financial irregularities.
He argued that despite holding a valid law degree, the petitioner continues to face denial of enrolment merely because criminal proceedings are pending and not because of any conviction.
Request for Interim Relief Before Final Verdict
The petitioner urged the Supreme Court to grant interim enrolment until the larger bench of the Madras High Court delivers its decision.
Goel argued that delaying enrolment indefinitely would cause unnecessary hardship, especially when the law does not expressly prohibit enrolment on the basis of pending criminal cases.
To strengthen his submission, he referred to the enrolment of one of the convicts in the assassination case of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was admitted as an advocate in April 2026 after completing over three decades of imprisonment.
The comparison was intended to demonstrate that conviction itself has not always prevented enrolment after legal disqualifications cease to operate.
Court Examines Section 24A of the Advocates Act
Questioning the Bar Council’s position, Justice Mehta asked why the petitioner had been denied enrolment despite the absence of any statutory provision barring individuals facing pending criminal trials.
Counsel for the BCI relied on earlier directions issued by the Madras High Court but acknowledged that the Advocates Act, 1961 contains no explicit provision disqualifying a person merely because criminal proceedings are pending.
Justice Mehta observed that such a restriction falls outside the scope of Section 24A of the Advocates Act, which specifically lays down the statutory grounds for disqualification from enrolment as an advocate.
The bench indicated that additional restrictions cannot ordinarily be imposed unless authorised by legislation.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The controversy traces back to a 2015 order of a single judge of the Madras High Court directing the Bar Council to refrain from enrolling law graduates who were facing criminal cases.
Subsequently, a full bench of the High Court upheld the direction as a temporary arrangement until Parliament enacted a specific law on the issue.
However, earlier this year, another division bench of the Madras High Court questioned the correctness of that interpretation. It observed that the Advocates Act does not empower the judiciary to create additional disqualifications beyond those expressly mentioned in Section 24A.
The division bench consequently referred the matter to a larger bench of five judges for reconsideration.
Matter Raises Wider Questions
The proceedings have brought two significant issues into focus—whether pending criminal cases can legally prevent the enrolment of law graduates and whether the Bar Council’s system of recognising legal education institutions requires stricter scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s observations suggest that the quality of legal education and adherence to statutory provisions are equally important for maintaining professional standards within the legal fraternity.
The matter will now continue before the Supreme Court while the legal question also awaits consideration by the larger bench of the Madras High Court.