Todays enrollment postphoned by high court order BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the First day of August Two Thousand Fourteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 in CRL OP(MD) No.14573 of 2014 S.M.ANANTHA MURUGAN, ADVOCATE, S/O.S.MARIYAPPAN, 4/730, KURICHI STREET, TAHSILDAR NAGAR, MADURAI-20. . .. PETITIONER/PETITIONER Vs 1 THE CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2 THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU AND PONDICHERRY, HIGH COURT BUILDING, CHENNAI-104. 3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, O/O. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KAMARAJAR SALAI, CHENNAI-4. 4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, MADURAI. 5 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, CHENNAI. 6 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, WEST ZONE, COIMBATORE, 7 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, TRICHY ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant an order of Ad-Interim Injunction restraining the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry not to enroll any applicant on 02/08/2014 without making proper enquiry regarding the Criminal antecedents, pending disposal of the above Crl.O.P(MD) No.14573 of 2014 ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.W.PETER RAMESH KUMAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.P.KANDASAMY, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondents 3 to 7, the Court made the following order:- It is not a rosy picture, which the petitioner paints about the candidates, who are trying to sneak into legal profession by getting enrolled as Advocates. The petitioner who is a practising Advocate, has knocked the doors of this Court stating that those with criminal background with heinous crimes, purchased Law degrees from neighbouring States, like, Andhra and Karnataka without even attending classes and basic qualifications and are making attempt to enroll themselves before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in the enrolment to be held tomorrow ie., 02.08.2014. 2. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 3 to 5 as follows: “3. It is submitted that the persons who cannot get admission in the law College in Tamil Nadu Government, they are getting admissions and buying LLB degrees in the Private college in Karnataka, Andhra, Chhattisgarth, Jharkhand and other northern States. At the time of enrolment, the applicant shall produce no objection certificate received from the police department that no criminal case is pending against him as on date. On receiving such application the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry shall make cross verification regarding the genuine of certificates produced for getting enrolment. 4. It is submitted that while making such verification the police department shall verify that whether any criminal case is pending against him in any police station within Tamil Nadu. The applicant who involved in heinous offence shall not be permitted to enroll as Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. 5. It is submitted that on 02.08.2014 the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry proposed to enroll 900 members as Advocate. Further, 40% out of 900 persons are having criminal backgrounds and involved in heinous offences. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is proposed to enroll the persons who are involved in murder case, theft case and rape cases as advocates. Further so many persons purchased LLB degree in Karnataka, Andhra and other states for going to enroll in the Bar Council with criminal backgrounds.” 3. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs would shock everybody. It is alleged that out of 900 members, who are to be enrolled, about 40% of the persons are having criminal backgrounds involved in heinous offences and they managed to obtain police verification certificate suppressing their criminal backgrounds. The two persons, namely, Elango, from Ramnad District, who is said to be having 14 criminal pending cases and one Mr.Ali Siddick from Madurai is said to have 7 criminal cases to his credit are to be enrolled. 4. Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that already the profession has become the place for criminal elements, who got into the profession purchasing degree from LLBs and if the proposed enrolment is to be held, it would still more make it worse. Therefore, he seeks an order not to conduct the enrolment to be held on 02.08.2014. 5. Mr.P. Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the petitioner has given a complaint with the higher police authorities and it would be looked into after due verification and appropriate steps would be taken, after due verification. 6. The nobility of the legal profession has been expressed in many judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court. The importance of the legal profession, high standards to be maintained and ethics to be followed by the Advocates are given in detail in various judgments, which are as follows: (i) In O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (2011) 6 SCC 86. Paragraph 17 of the Judgement reads as follows:- “17. The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of sovereign and democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the nation’s administration was to be governed by the rule of law. They were considered intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social activists amongst the downtrodden. These include the names of a galaxy of lawyers like Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to name a few. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no special mention. In a profession with such a vivid history it is regretful, to say the least, to witness instances of the nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the officers of the court in the administration of justice.” (ii) In R.D.Saxona Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma reported (2000)7 SCC 264 held that a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people a beacon light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and the exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. (iii) In Sudha v. President, Advocates Association, Chennai and others reported (2010) 14 SCC 114 in paragraph 40 reads as follows : “40. 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 prescribed by different universities, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. 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 an intelligent citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The different Associations of the members of the Bar are being formed to show the strength of lawyers in case of necessity. The lawyer while exercising vote in an election of office- bearers of the Association must conduct himself in an exemplary manner. Those who are concerned about the high standard of the profession are supposed to take appropriate action to see that the election takes place peacefully and in an organised manner.” (iv) In the matter V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, reported in (1979) 1 SCC 308 out line the importance of Advocate that nothing should be done by any member of the legal fadality and which might done to lesson in any degree the confidency of the public fedality, honesty and integrity of the profession. The relevant paragraphs 4 and 5, which reads as follows in “4. Law is a noble profession, true; but it is also an elitist profession. Its ethics, in practice, (not in theory, though) leave much to be desired, if viewed as a profession for the people. When the Constitution under Article 19 enables professional expertise to enjoy a privilege and the Advocates Act confers a monopoly, the goal is not assured income but commitment to the people — the common people whose hunger, privation and hamstrung human rights need the advocacy of the profession to change the existing order into a Human Tomorrow. This desideratum gives the clue to the direction of the penance of a deviant geared to correction. Serve the people free and expiate your sin, is the hint. 5. Law’s nobility as a profession lasts only so long as the members maintain their commitment to integrity and service to the community. Indeed, the monopoly conferred on the legal profession by Parliament is coupled with a responsibility — a responsibility towards the people, especially the poor. Viewed from this angle, every delinquent who deceives his common client deserves to be frowned upon. This approach makes it a reproach to reduce the punishment, as pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant.” (v) Importantly, Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in matter of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar reported in (1975) 2 SCC 702 in paragraph 52, which reads as follows: “52. The Bar is not a private guild, like that of “barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers” but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practice law is based on three assumptions: (1) There is a socially useful function for the lawyer to perform, (2) The lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function, and (3) His performance as a professional person is regulated by himself not more formally, by the profession as a whole. The central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice (‘The Practice of Law is a Public Utility’ — ‘The Lawyer, The Public and Professional Responsibility’ by F. Raymond Marks et al — Chicago American Bar Foundation, 1972, p. 288-89). A glance at the functions of the Bar Council, and it will be apparent that a rainbow of public utility duties, including legal aid to the poor, is cast on these bodies in the national hope that the members of this monopoly will serve society and keep to canons of ethics befitting an honourable order. If pathological cases of member misbehaviour occur, the reputation and credibility of the Bar suffer a mayhem and who, but the Bar Council, is more concerned with and sensitive to this potential disrepute the few black sheep bring about? The official heads of the Bar i.e. the Attorney-General and the Advocates-General too are distressed if a lawyer “stoops to conquer” by resort to soliciting, touting and other corrupt practices.” When such is the glory of the legal profession elements like Goondas, criminals, law violators cannot get an avatar of advocate and take shelter under the name of Advocate and try to shield their illegal/unlawful acts by entering into the profession and polluting the same which will be against the public interest. 7. When Law is a service oriented profession, very harsh, shameful allegations are made against some of the persons who seek to become Advocates. As per the allegation made in the petition that a number of candidates approached the Bar council of Tamil Nadu with antecedent certificates and they seek to enrol tomorrow. Even in the earlier occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that persons with criminal backgrounds got enrolled suppressing the criminal cases which is as follows: “(1) Karmegam, whose enrolment No. is 1319/2013 against whom a criminal has been pending in F.I.R.No.78 of 2010, Central Crime Branch, Madurai and (2) Joseph Arul Jayaseelans enrolment No. is 1305/2013 was detained under GOONDAS Act and he is a history sheeter also.” The details given in above is only a tip of ice berg. It is very shocking to note that the persons who were detained under Goondas Act, the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, and history sheeters also got enrolled as Advocates. That apart it is reported in the newspapers that an alleged Advocate is involved in a robbery of a jewellery in Madurai. Similarly, it is being alleged by the petitioner that many criminal offences are committed in the name of Advocates. It is said that making use of the name “Advocate” they are indulging in these kinds of criminal activities and due to that, the noble professions image is damaged. Since shield of advocate is being used, police is also not taking proper action. If the criminals and history sheeters are allowed to enrol and practise as lawyers before the courts of law, it is the end of the rule of law. The justice delivery system has to function based on the valuable assistance given by the Advocates who are officers of the court. They owe duty not only to the clients but also to the court as well as to the society. Such a noble profession is sought to be high-jacked by the criminal elements, it is contended. If what the petitioner contends is true, it will definitely jeopardise very justice delivery systems and the court functioning will also be irreversibly affected. 8. Even if a person wants to enter into police force as a Constable, he should not have any criminal case against him. Such a rule was also upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan Vs. Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board reported in 2008(2)CTC 97 and approved by Five Judges Bench of this Court in J.Alex Ponselvan Vs. Director General of Police, Tamilnadu reported in 2014(2) CTC 337 and also in a case in Commissioner of Police vs. Meharsingh reported in (2013)7 SCC 685 by the Honourable Apex Court. 9. When such is the position, in case of police constable post, the persons who enter into the profession should only be good persons with integrity, honesty and rectitude, straight forward people alone should enter into this profession and not bad elements. There is every possibility of an Advocate to become a Judge one day. When such an onerous responsibility is to be shouldered by those candidates in future, the role of Bar council is important to verify the background of the candidates thoroughly. If the criminal elements are allowed to enter, the justice delivery system will be hijacked. 10. Since two solid cases, namely, Elango and Ali Siddick, against whom many cases are stated to be pending, have been quoted by the petitioner, this Court cannot ignore the said serious allegations. Moreover, it is stated that the antecedent verification certificates were given without proper verification. Quoting names, the veracity of the verification certificates is questioned, it has to be viewed very seriously, as public interest is involved. After re-verification, the enrolment can be allowed to be conducted later. The criminal background of the candidates is required to be done. Taking such process to filter those criminal elements and preventing them from entering into profession is the interest of the society and the judiciary which is one of the pillars of the State. Hence, the enrolment is required to be postponed only for verification of the certificates of the candidates. Even, one drop of poison would spoil the whole pot of milk. 11. This Court is making these prima facie observations based on the statements made in the petition only against those criminal elements and not against the regular candidates, who underwent the studies regularly and obtained degrees. 12. Prevention is better that cure. Though many of regular candidates would be affected by the order of this Court, this Court has to see the larger interest of the society. Public interest would prevail over private interest. After verification, they can be enrolled. Hence, interest of justice requires a direction to the first and second respondent to postpone the enrolment to be held on tomorrow. Accordingly, the first and second respondents are directed to postpone the enrolment to be held on tomorrow I.e. on 02.08.2014 pending O.P. 13. Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Govt. Advocate takes notice for respondents 3 to 7. 14. Notice to the respondents 1 and 2 returnable by 11.08.2014. Private notice is also permitted. sd/- 01/08/2014 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2 THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU AND PONDICHERRY, HIGH COURT BUILDING, CHENNAI-104. 3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, O/O. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KAMARAJAR SALAI, CHENNAI-4. 4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, MADURAI. 5 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, CHENNAI. 6 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, WEST ZONE, COIMBATORE, 7 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, TRICHY 8 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +5. CCS to M/S.W.PETER RAMESH KUMAR Advocate SR.No.42861. ORDER IN MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 IN CRL OP(MD) No.14573 of 2014 Date :01/08/2014 msm 01.08.2014 p8/14c
Posted on: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 15:34:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015