Court Suggests Larger Bench Review of Judicial Directions Imposing Additional Disqualifications Not Found in Advocates Act
In a significant development, the Madras High Court has proposed a re-evaluation of judicial directions that impose additional disqualifications on the enrolment of advocates, which are not expressly mentioned in the Advocates Act, 1961. This decision emerged from a case involving petitioner S. Bhaskarapandian, whose application for enrolment as an advocate was stalled due to pending criminal cases.
The petitioner, who retired as a Village Administrative Officer, sought to enrol as an advocate after his retirement. However, his application was impeded by a judicial direction that barred enrolment for individuals with pending criminal cases, except in specific circumstances. This direction, initially laid down in the case of S.M.Anantha Murugan v. The Chairman, was affirmed by a Full Bench as a temporary measure, pending legislative amendments.
The bench, comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi, highlighted that the right to practice any profession, including law, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They noted that while this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, any additional disqualifications for advocate enrolment must be explicitly stipulated in legislation, namely Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The court underscored that the statute only mentions conviction as a disqualification, not mere implication in criminal cases, aligning with the principle of presumption of innocence. The bench referenced several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that courts should not impose restrictions beyond those legislatively established.
Acknowledging the binding nature of previous decisions by coordinate benches and a Full Bench, the judges refrained from issuing a contrary direction. Instead, they suggested that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice to consider constituting a larger bench to resolve the issue conclusively.
This decision is poised to impact the legal fraternity significantly, particularly concerning the enrolment process for aspiring advocates. The outcome of the proposed larger bench review could redefine the balance between judicial directions and statutory provisions in regulating the legal profession.
Bottom Line:
Right to enrolment as an advocate cannot be restricted by judicial directions if it is not explicitly mentioned under Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, as the Act already provides for specific disqualifications.
Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961 Section 24A, Constitution of India Article 19(1)(g), Advocates Act, 1961 Section 34
