Cong Mp suda case THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P.No. of 2026 Miss R. Sudha D/o. T.K.Ramakrishnan No.6, Chennai House Annexe, Esplanade, Chennai – 600 104 … Petitioner Verses 1. Union of India Represented by Secretary to Government Home Department,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2026
Miss R. Sudha
D/o. T.K.Ramakrishnan
No.6, Chennai House Annexe,
Esplanade, Chennai – 600 104 … Petitioner
Verses 1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary to Government
Home Department,
North Block, New Delhi – 110001

2. Union of India
Represented by Secretary to Government
Legislative and Legal Affairs Department
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001

3. The Secretary
Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New Delhi – 110 002

4. The Secretary
The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry
High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600104

5. The Central Bureau of Investigation Rep. by its Director CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.

6. Mr. A.G.Perarivalan
Sengodi Illam
K.K.Thangavelu Street
Behind Jolarpettai Railway Station
Vellore … Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
I, R.Sudha, D/o.T.K.Ramakrishnan, aged about 48 years, having office at No.6, Chennai House Annexe, Esplanade, Chennai – 600001 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows
1. I submit that I am the petitioner herein and as such well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I submit that the present public interest litigation is filed seeking writ of Declaration declaring that the Section 24A of Advocates Act,1961 unconstitutional as far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced for death penalty and Imprisonment of Life, and to declare the enrolment of A.G.Perarivalan/6th respondent as illegal and void .
3. I submit that I do not have any personal interest in this matter except as a person of Member of Lawyer Community and as general public. This is a public-spirited initiative on behalf of people of India in general. It is also submitted that this litigation is not filed on behalf of any other class of persons other than those mentioned herein. I have not filed any other public interest litigation in the past in this issue. It is stated that the present writ petition does not involve any disputes between individuals or any service matters. I undertake to bear costs if any personal gain or oblique motive is found by this Hon’ble court.
4. The present writ petition has been filed out of the own funds of the petitioner and not from any other source. I have not filed any other
Public Interest Litigation petition arising on the same issue, anywhere
else. It is also stated that representations were effectively made to authorities concerned in the past. I am Member of Parliament (Lok
Sabha), Mayiladuthurai Constituency, Tamilnadu from Indian National Congress party. I am practicing as an Advocate, and enrolment no is Ms/449/2000. The PAN Number is BJRPS4763D and my annual income is approximately 50 lakhs for last financial year and the Aadhaar No is 3740 2304 7743.
5. I submit that I am a lawyer practicing for 26 years now in the Madras High Court, City Civil Courts and Family Courts. I had the distinction of having held several elected positions staring from Executive Member, Librarian, treasurer and the Vice-President of prestigious
Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA). I was elected as Member of Parliament in the General Elections held in 2024 from the Myladuthurai Constituency. I am conscious of the responsibilities of myself being a lawmaker. I was also member of Vishaka Committee, High Court of Madras for two terms, totally for four years. I was also member of Tamilnadu Legal Services Authority and rendered legal aid to the needy through the Authority.
6. I submit that I was shocked to see from the press media and social media that on April 27, 2026 that on the Enrollment Day of
27.04.2026 the fourth respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has enrolled 6th respondent/ A.G. Perarivalan in its rolls as Advocate.
7. I submit that the 6th respondent was convicted for the assassination of former Prime Minister Shri. Rajiv Gandhi. I submit that in the heinous act total of 16 persons have lost their lives.
8. I submit that the sentence of death penalty on the 6th respondent was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1999 vide judgement dated 11.05.1999, and the conviction of the 6th respondent was confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court for the offences under
Sections 109 and 326 IPC, 109 and 324 IPC, 120 (B) r/w 302 IPC. The Honble Supreme Court has noted down the specific overt acts and conduct of the 6th respondent in its judgement as follows
“Conduct of Arivu (A-18) before and after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi leaves no one in doubt that he was member of the conspiracy. It is not necessary for a conspirator to be present at the scene of the crime to be a member of the Conspiracy. Mr. Natarajan said that Arivu (A-18) was merely an errand boy and was following the instructions of Sivarasan and he himself had no active role to play. He said Arivu (A-18) bought the car battery and 9 volt golden power battery at the instance of Sivarasan and so also Kawasaki Bajaj motorcycle. He further argued that merely on these counts it cannot be said that Arivu (A-18) had knowledge of the conspiracy and that he himself did not agree to achieve the object of the conspiracy. Circumstances rather show that Arivu (A-18) was in the thick of conspiracy. He knew that to explode the IED power source would be 9 volt battery and that is why he purchased battery of that power and which was ultimately used in exploding the device killing Rajiv Gandhi and others. Mr. Natarajan also said that the version of Arivu (A-18) that this battery was used for explosion of the IED was his knowledge derived after the explosion cannot be accepted.
Arivu (A-18) has, therefore, been rightly convicted for various offences charged against him by the Designated Court”
9. I submit that the sentence of death penalty was reduced to imprisonment for life by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgement dated 18.12.2014.
10.I submit that vide judgement dated 18.05.2022, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordered the release of 6th respondent. The relevant portion is as follows
“38.6. Taking into account the appellant’s prolonged period of incarceration, his satisfactory conduct in jail as well as during parole, chronic ailments from his medical records, his educational qualifications acquired during incarceration and the pendency of his petition under Article 161 for two-and-ahalf years after the recommendation of the State Cabinet, we do not consider it fit to remand the matter for the Governor’s consideration. In exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that the appellant is deemed to have served the sentence in connection with Crime No. 329 of 1991. The appellant, who is already on bail, is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bonds are cancelled.”
11.I submit that he was convicted for the acts of terrorism and offences against State. He was convicted for the offences which carried minimum punishment of imprisonment for life. He was set at liberty by the Honble Supreme Court of India due to inordinate delay by the
Hon’ble Governor in considering the recommendation of the State Government for remission of his sentence of life imprisonment.
12.I submit that there is no iota of doubt about the involvement of A.G.Perarivalan/6th respondent in the assassination of one of the greatest leaders our nation has ever seen. Shri. Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination on May 21, 1991 resulted in pushing the progress of our nation by a couple of decades, as he had pioneered initiatives like computer revolution of our generation and empowerment of the common man through Panchayati Raj laws. His assassination shocked the entire world, and those who were responsible were tried and convicted by a Special Court, and thereafter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The accused were afforded every opportunity in the book to defend themselves. After exhaustive proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the 6th respondent and others were guilty of the assassination, and awarded them the death penalty.
13.I submit that his later release in May 2022 was merely on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding his pending mercy petitions. Once he was found guilty by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also rejected the connected review pleas, a finality of guilt is attained. The subsequent commuting of the death penalty into imprisonment for life, and then a complete release from jail on the ground of inordinate delay in deciding his mercy pleas will not wipe off the guilt of the 6th respondent.
14.In the year 2016 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mahipal Singh Rana Vs. State of Utter Pradesh reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 335 has held the importance of rejecting the convicted persons in the public services and also stressed upon the need to amend the Section 24 A of the Advocates Act, 1961. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder
“Undesirability of convicted person to perform important public functions
44. It may also be appropriate to refer to the legal position about undesirability of a convicted person being allowed to perform important public functions. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672] it was observed that it was not advisable to retain a person in civil service after conviction. [Id., para 153] In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang [Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513] reference was made to Section 267 of the Companies Act barring a convicted person from holding the post of a Managing Director in a company. This Court observed that having regard to the said wholesome provision, stay of conviction ought to be granted only in rare cases. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 678 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 641 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 811] , this Court held that an elected representative could not continue to hold the office after conviction [Id., para 28] . In Manoj Narula v. Union of India [Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1] similar observation was made.
In Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao [Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao, (1953) 1 SCC 320 : AIR
1953 SC 210] the disqualification against eligibility for contesting election was held to operate for continuing on the elected post.
Interpretation of Section 24-A : Need to amend the provision
45. Section 24-A of the Advocates Act is as follows:
“24-A. Disqualification for enrolment.—(1) No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll—
(a) if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude;
(b) if he is convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(c) if he is dismissed or removed from employment or office under the State on any charge involving moral turpitude.
Explanation.—In this clause, the expression “State” shall have the meaning assigned to it under Article 12 of the Constitution:
Provided that the disqualification for enrolment as aforesaid shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release or dismissal or, as the case may be, removal.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who having been found guilty is dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958).”
46. Dealing with the above provision, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in ‘C’ v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1982) 2 Guj LR 706
“5. … We, however, wish to avail of this opportunity to place on record our feeling of distress and dismay at the fact that a public servant who is found guilty of an offence of taking an illegal gratification in the discharge of his official duties by a competent court can be enrolled as a member of the Bar even after a lapse of two years from the date of his release from imprisonment. It is for the authorities who are concerned with this question to reflect on the question as to whether such a provision is in keeping with the high stature which the profession (which we so often describe as the noble profession) enjoys and from which even the members of highest judiciary are drawn. It is not a crime of passion committed in a moment of loss of equilibrium. Corruption is an offence which is committed after deliberation and it becomes a way of life for him. A corrupt apple cannot become a good apple with passage of time. It is for the legal profession to consider whether it would like such a provision to continue to remain on the statute book and would like to continue to admit persons who have been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude and persons who have been found guilty of acceptance of illegal
gratification, rape, dacoity, forgery, misappropriation of public funds, relating to counterfeit currency and coins and other offences of like nature to be enrolled as members merely because two years have elapsed after the date of their release from imprisonment. Does passage of 2 years cleanse such a person of the corrupt character trait, purify his mind and transform him into a person fit for being enrolled as a member of this noble profession? Enrolled so that widows can go to him, matters pertaining to properties of minors and matters on behalf of workers pitted against rich and influential persons can be entrusted to him without qualms, court records can be placed at his disposal, his word at the Bar should be accepted? Should a character certificate in the form of a black gown be given to him so that a promise of probity and trustworthiness is held out to the unwary litigants seeking justice? A copy of this order may, therefore, be sent to the appropriate authorities concerned with the administration of the Bar Council of
India and the State Bar Council, Ministry of Law of the Government of India and Law Commission in order that the matter may be examined fully and closely with the end in view to preserve the image of the profession and protect the seekers for justice from dangers inherent in admitting such persons on the rolls of the Bar Council.”
47. In spite of the above observations no action appears to have been taken at any level. The result is that a person convicted of even a most heinous offence is eligible to be enrolled as an advocate after expiry of two years from expiry of his sentence. This aspect needs urgent attention of all concerned.”
15.I submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various cases held that an advocate who was convicted for criminal contempt, cannot become an advocate until and unless he purges himself from the contempt.
16.In Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali, (2001) 8 SCC 650 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the Constitutional Bench Judgement of “Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 109” and has held as follows
14. By giving expression to such a proposition the Bar Council of
India has obviously overlooked the legal position laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 409] . In para 57 of the decision the Bench said thus: (SCC p. 438)
“57. In a given case, an advocate found guilty of committing contempt of court may also be guilty of committing ‘professional misconduct’, depending upon the gravity or nature of his contumacious conduct, but the two jurisdictions are separate and distinct and exercisable by different forums by following separate and distinct procedures. The power to punish an advocate by suspending his licence or by removal of his name from the roll of the State Bar Council for proven professional misconduct vests exclusively in the statutory authorities created under the Advocates Act, 1961, while the jurisdiction to punish him for committing contempt of court vests exclusively in the courts.”
15. Thereafter in para 80, the Constitution Bench said the following: (SCC pp. 445-46)
“80. In a given case it may be possible, for this Court or the High Court, to prevent the contemnor advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of the contempt but that is much different from suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practise as an advocate. In a case of contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record, this Court possesses jurisdiction, under the Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to practise as an Advocate-onRecord because that privilege is conferred by this Court and the power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege, however, does not amount to suspending or revoking his licence to practise as an advocate in other courts or tribunals.”
24. Purging is a process by which an undesirable element is expelled either from one’s own self or from a society. It is a cleaning process. Purge is a word which acquired implications first in theological connotations. In the case of a sin, purging of such sin is made through the expression of sincere remorse coupled with doing the penance required. In the case of a guilt, purging means to get himself cleared of the guilt. The concept of purgatory was evolved from the word “purge”, which is a state of suffering after this life in which those souls, who depart this life with their deadly sins, are purified and rendered fit to enter into heaven where nothing defiled enters (vide Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 35-A, p. 307). In Black’s Law Dictionary the word “purge” is given the following meaning: “To cleanse; to clear. To clear or exonerate from some charge or imputation of guilt, or from a contempt.” It is preposterous to suggest that if the convicted person undergoes punishment or if he tenders the fine amount imposed on him the purge would be completed.”
17.I submit that when a person guilty of contempt of court is not permitted to act as an advocate unless and until he was purged from Contempt, the 6th respondent having been convicted for acts of terrorism is now enrolled by the 4th respondent in its roll as an advocate.
18.Further it is seen from the materials available in the public, that the 6th respondent has completed his in degrees of UG/BCA and PG/MCA in Indira Gandhi National Open University while he was in prison. Further he had completed his Higher Secondary Exam through open examination system after he had completed his UG and PG courses. After his release by the orders of the Honble Supreme Court of India, he seems to have studied his law degree from Dr.B.R.Amedkar law College, Bengaluru.
19.It is seen from the interview given by the mother of 6th respondent that the 6th respondent wanted to study plus two for the purpose of doing PhD. Thus, one can infer without any ambiguity that the 6th respondent has studied Higher Secondary course after he had completed his under graduate course. Further, the 6th respondent acquired UG degree through open university stream only. Therefore
the 6th respondent must not have allowed the enrollment of the 6th respondent in first place.
20.Furthermore, the last Enrollment day by the 4th respondent held on 15.12.2025 and 16.12.2025. The tenure of the bar council members have expired too and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has appointed a High Powered Committee by its judgement dated 18.11.2025 in
W.P.No. (Civil) No. 1319 of 2023 to conduct the elections for the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry. The elections were also held on 30.03.2025. The above being the factual scenario the enrollment function was held on 27.04.2026.
21. The members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and its Sub-Committee is not in existence for all practical and legal purposes. The office-bearers whose terms of office have expired many years ago have no locus to carry out their functions under the disguise of the enrollment Committee. All members were ceased to be office-bearers at least from the date of the election notification.
22.The Election notification was issued on 30.01.2026. The counting of the votes are being done from 04th April 2026. Therefore in the above circumstances the members/ office bearers of the 4th respondent has shown undue urgency to enroll the 6th respondent is completely bewildering and suspicious.
23.My apprehension is fortified by the fact that in all enrollments the 4th respondent uploads the list of candidates to be enrolled in its website https://www.bctnpy.org/ and the for the enrollment held on 27.04.2026 also a list was uploaded. As on 01.05.2026 i.e. after the conclusion of the enrollment, the name of the 6th respondent was
not figured in the list. This establishes without any iota of doubt that enrollment of 6th respondent is held irregularly and against the established procedures. Therefore, these serious lapses must be enquired into by the sitting or retired judge of this Hon’ble Court to find out the actual truth and to find the persons responsible for the gross illegalities of the 4th respondent.
24.I submit that the crime committed by the 6th respondent is not of crime of sudden provocation or what is normally called as minor offences. It is an offence against state and an act of terrorism. The organization is still a unlawful association under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The ban was further extended by the recent notification dated 15.05.2024 issued by the First respondent. Also the Government of Tamilnadu too has passed similar notification dated 18.05.2024 branding the organization of LTTE as unlawful association.
25.In such scenario, it is incomprehensible as to the tearing hurry in which the non existing bar council office bearers have taken pains to include the name of the 6th respondent for enrollment even in the absence of his name in the list published in the 4th respondent’s website.
26.I submit that the wiping out the bar of enrolment after two years of release under Section 24A, does not render the person in any way desirable to plead on behalf of a person seeking redressal of his grievance through the justice delivery system.
27.I submit that the legal profession has seen such jailed and convicted freedom fighters as V.O. Chidambaram Pillai and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari. Young women and men make a beeline to join the profession because the legal profession offers them freedom, empowerment, fame, wealth and strength of character. Once enrolled as a lawyer, they are officers of the court, and so they could access any records and represent anyone before any judicial and quasi judicial forum.
28.While so, allowing 6th respondent/A.G.Perarivalan this exclusive access to state and societal resources will be disastrous as well as demoralising for youngsters entering the profession. It will be a rude shock to the families of those who were killed along with the assassination of Shri. Rajiv Gandhi. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the Court.
29.The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behavior. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life.
30.The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously and practice it with dignity, deference and devotion. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible.
31.I further submit that I have sent detailed representation dated 29.04.2026 to the respondents 1 to 4 through email. Similarly, I have also submitted representation dated 30.04.2026 to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Tamilnadu in person. I submit that the 4th respondent has committed illegalities one after another in the enrollment of the 6th respondent and viewing from any angle the 6th respondent must not have been enrolled with 4th respondent.
32.I submit that I have no other effective alternative remedy available in law except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for the reliefs morefully mentioned hereunder. I have not filed any other writ petition seeking for the same relief.
GROUNDS
A. The enrollment of the 6th respondent as an advocate in rolls of the 4th respondent is exfacie arbitrary, illegal, and void
B. The term ‘release’ in Section 24A of the Advocates Act, cannot be stretched to mean and include the persons convicted and sentenced for death penalty and Imprisonmnet for Life.
C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has settled the issue of tenure Imprisonment for life means imprisonment till the death of the convict and not 14 years or 20 years. In such case, the premature release or remission of a convict cannot fall within the ambit of Section 24A of the Advocates Act.
D. The term ‘release’ from imprisonment which presupposes that there is a definitive period of imprisonment, because a person convicted for death penalty and/or imprisonment for life is legally mandated to be confined in prison till his last breath. Therefore the case of the 6th respondent can never fall under the purview of ‘release’ at all.
E. The 6th respondent has completed his Higher Secondary in Open Examination stream after he completed his UG degree of BCA from Open University. Therefore, this cannot be called as 10+2+3 to enable the 6th respondent to enroll himself as advocate.
F. Furthermore, he had completed his law degree of three years using the bachelor’s degree he obtained from Open University. Explanation to Rule 5 of Bar Council Rules, 2008 reads as follows.
““Explanation— the applicants who have obtained 10 +2 or graduation/postgraduation through Open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses.”” Therefore, such law degree cannot be used for enrollment and the 6th respondent is disqualified on this issue as well.
G. The law degree obtained by the 4th respondent is per se illegal and non est in law, as he was ineligible to be admitted in the LLB Degree at all. The Full bench of this Honble Court in the case of P.Raji Vs.
The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puduecherry, reported in (2018) 3 LW 865 (FB) has held that
“53. It is reiterated that Rule 5(a) of the Legal Education Rules read with the first proviso and the Explanation makes a graduate degree from a university whose LLB degree is recognized by the Bar Council of India for enrolment upon completion of a regular course, including a course through correspondence or distance mode, a mandatory eligibility criteria for admission to the Three Year LLB course. However, those who obtain graduate degree through an Open University system without having the basic qualification i.e., without obtaining 10 +2 certificates and/or in other words Secondary and/or Senior Secondary certificate or equivalent from a Board authorised to confer such certificates are not eligible for admission to the Three Year Law course. Similarly, a candidate who may have cleared +2 (Senior Secondary course) would not be eligible for admission in the Integrated Degree Program if he has obtained the certificate through an Open University system without having the basic qualification for prosecuting +2 course, which is a Secondary certificate.”
H. The office bearers of the 4th respondent have no official capacity to carry out the functions of the enrollment committee once their tenure is expired and more particularly after the election notification was issued by the High-Power Committee on 30.01.2026. In such case the enrollment committee has no powers to decide the claims and rights of the 6th respondent.
I. The 4th respondent could not have allowed the enrollment of the 6th respondent knowing well that the 6th respondent was a convict for
life and his sentence alone was remitted. Suspension or remission of sentence does not take away the conviction of the 6th respondent for the heinous crimes committed against the state.
J. The petitioner states that, when an advocate who was convicted for criminal contempt, cannot become an advocate until and unless he purges himself from the contempt, allowing a death penalty convict to practice law is nothing but gross abuse of law by the 4th respondent.
K. A division bench of the Honble Allahabad High Court in Prashanth Singh Gaur Vs. State of UP, reported in MANU/UP/1921/2010 was constrained to observe that there is a systematic attempt by the criminal elements of the society to criminalise the legal system by inducting the law graduates with criminal background and criminal bent of mind in the Bar and who work like mafia dons. Various suggestions were mooted to cleanse the system.
L. The explanation of rule 14(b)of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules states that a person who was acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the Police Service. In such case, extending the benefit of enrollment on the person convicted for death penalty makes no sense.
M. The Section 24A is arbitrary and in violation of the Article 14 in as much as it does not make any intelligible difference between persons convicted for definite terms and the persons convicted for death penalty and imprisonment for life and to such extent Section 24A is unconstitutional.
N. This Honble Court in the case of S.M.Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman, Bar Council of India and others has held that
“25. The word “A Person” employed in Section 24 shall mean a person with honesty, moral values, ethics, integrity and without criminal background and that person alone is qualified to be admitted as advocate on a State Roll (Section 24 of the Advocates’ Act)” and
“An advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and Subordinate Courts thereto (Section 34 of the Advocates’ Act)” must possess good moral character without involvement in crime. So after enactment of Advocates’ Act, 1961 stated in the above Section, the enrolment form contains a clause regarding the applicant’s involvement in criminal case. Therefore, the State Bar Council is duty bound to verify the nature of the crimes alleged and also verify the antecedent of the candidate seeking enrolment in a meticulous manner so as to deny entry pass to such criminal elements into legal profession. In such circumstances, the purposive interpretation to the word ‘person’ incorporated in section 24 of the Advocates’ Act is necessary to curtail the entry of criminals in the Noble legal profession which is permissible under the Indian Legal systems to meet out the present day demand of purity of legal profession by applying dictum of the Constitution Bench’s Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (1987) 1 SCC 395”.
O. The Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Yogendra Prakash
Jauhari Vs. Bar Council of India & ors, reported in 2012 (128) DRJ 628 (DB) has held as follows
“18.We may hasten to add that Chief Justice Burger while addressing the American College of Trial Lawyers, District of Columbia, lamented on the state of the profession as under
“in some jurisdictions up to half of the lawyers who appear in court are so poorly trained that they are not properly performing their job and that their manners and their professional performance and their professional ethics offend a great many people. They are engaging on-the-job training at the expense of their client’s interests and the public
We thus take solace in the fact that the problem highlighted in the judgement (supra) is not confined to India Alone
19.The profession of law has always been known as noble profession. It is not an empty rhetoric. Success in the profession is measured not by the fortune made but on the threshold of learning. Advocates are known as the officers of the Court. They are expected to possess not only intellectual purity but owe a responsibility to the Court to present the case dispassionately in an upright dignified ethical manner and to deploy fairness also to their colleagues and in all their dealings. The duty of a lawyer is to assist the Court in the administration of justice and an advocate must not indulge in any activity which may tend to lower the image of the profession in the society”
P. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise additional grounds at the time of the hearing.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a
a. WRIT OF DECLARATION that the Section 24A of Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional so far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced for death penalty and imprisonment of life
b. WRIT OF DECLARATION that the enrolment of 6th respondent as advocate on the rolls of the 4th respondent as illegal and void,
c. Interim direction to direct the 5th respondent to conduct investigation into the affairs and the manner of enrolment of the 6th respondent as Advocate, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
d. To pass an order of interim suspension of the enrolment of the 6th respondent as an advocate, pending disposal of the above writ
petition.
And pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on ) Before Me
This 12th day of May 2026 and )
And signed her name in my presence ) Advocate Chennai