Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4190 (MAD)

Tamilarasi G. v. Health Secretary Ministry

2017-12-08

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. Mr. H. Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Special Leave Petition filed as against the orders of this Court dated 12.10.2017 and 25.10.2017 is to be listed before the Honourable Supreme Court of India on 11.12.2017. 2. Mr. V.P. Raman, learned Standing Counsel for the Medical Council of India, on telephonic instructions, would submit that inspection report of the Medical Council of India, along with its recommendations, has been sent to the Oversight Committee for taking appropriate decision with regard to Annai Medical College and he would assure that a decision would be taken at the earliest. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the Special Leave Petition is coming up on Monday before the Honourable Apex Court, it is appropriate to post these matters on 13.12.2017. 4. Though the original writ petitions relate to a Medical College namely, Annai Medical College and Hospital and the writ petitions have been filed by the affected students, the founder trustees and the new trustees, due to their inter se disputes, allegedly engaged advocates either to retain possession or to take possession. In this regard, the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District had also filed an affidavit, which confirmed the engaging of advocates by both the parties to take over the college or to retain the college. 5. Taking note of similar incidents occuring throughout the State by the so-called advocates, this Court incidentally decided to deal with the said issue in Public Interest as this case would expose the unruly behaviour of some of the persons called advocates and the necessity to control them and to root out the criminal elements from the legal profession. Therefore, this Court, by a detailed interim order dated 10.10.2017, impleaded Bar Council of India; Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; Government of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice; Law Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu; Director General of Police and other authorities and raised about 25 queries regarding the unruly behaviour of the so-called advocates and the actions of some of the leaders of the Bar and the mushrooming of Law Colleges and the necessity to control the number of Law Colleges and entry of criminal elements and streamline the legal education. 6. When the matters are called today, Mr. 6. When the matters are called today, Mr. S.R. Rakhunathan, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India seeks time to give reply to the 25 queries already raised by this Court by order dated 10.10.2017. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.12260 & 12261 of 2017 filed by two advocates to take action against accused advocates for threatening them would submit that elections to Bar Council of India are going to be held soon as per the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court and taking into account the past history of candidates, who contested the Bar Council Elections, made the following suggestions: (i) Declaration of assets possessed by the contesting candidates and their family members, about 10 years ago and as on date; (ii) Disclosure of income earned by the aspiring candidates from their profession as well as other sources, for the past 10 years and also, as on date; (iii) Disclosure of pending criminal cases; (iv) The number of cases in which they appeared and conducted by filing vakalath, during their tenure of practice, by filing judgments in proof thereof; (v) The number of cases pending against them i.e, criminal, civil , as well as proceedings before the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; (vi) The post held in any political party in the past and the present. 7. The above suggestions put forth by Mr. N. Senthilkumar appear to be fair and reasonable and it is only in the interest of the profession. If the above details are furnished, the voters, namely, the advocates, would be in a better position to understand the credentials of the contestants. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the candidates involved in the criminal cases, where chargesheet is filed and the punishment for the offences of which is more than 3 years should not be permitted to contest in the election, as in the case of election of those candidates facing such serious criminal cases may be detrimental to the disposal of the criminal cases pending against them in a free and fair manner. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1590 and 1670 of 2015, dated 09.08.2017 has affirmed my view expressed in the case of S.M. Anantha Murugan v. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi reported in 2015 (6) CTC 22 that the law graduates with pending criminal cases, except bailable cases attracting punishment upto three years and compoundable offences involving matrimonial, family and civil disputes, cannot enroll till the changes are brought in The Advocates Act & Bar Council of India Rules. 8. Further, it is advisable that no advocate who held or is holding a key post in a political party or who is or was an elected member of the legislative assembly or parliament should be allowed to contest in the Bar Council elections to avoid any political interference in the legal profession and make the Bar Council a play ground to achieve their political ambitions. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in which I am also a party in the case of P. Ramu v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2016-3-L.W.769 has given the following directions while dealing with the application for enrollment submitted by the candidates crossing the 40 years of age: (a) Bar Councils are directed to verify whether the candidates, who apply for enrolment, after crossing 40 year of age, have rightly obtained Law Degree or not. If they had obtained Law Degree, while in service, then they shall not be enrolled. (b) Bar Councils shall verify the Ration Card, Pan Card and Aadhar Card of the candidates to ascertain their address, social status and their income, at the time of enrolment. (c) Bar Councils shall get an affidavit from the candidates, who crossed 40 years of age at the time of enrolment stating that they have not obtained law degree while they were in service. 10. In the light of the same analogy, it is always advisable to verify the educational qualifications of the candidates who intend to contest in the Bar Council elections as to whether they have satisfied the Legal Education Rules 2008, particularly Rule 5 framed by the Bar Council of India and obtained the law degree. In case their law degree is not a regular law degree or obtained without satisfying the rules regarding their basic qualifications, their candidature have to be rejected. 11. In case their law degree is not a regular law degree or obtained without satisfying the rules regarding their basic qualifications, their candidature have to be rejected. 11. Like that, the Ration card, Pan card and Aadhar card of the candidates have to be verified to ascertain their address, social status and their income at the time of nomination. 12. Further, in the case of S.M. Anantha Murugan v. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, in paragraph 60, clause (11), this Court has held as follows: "Bar Council of India shall not conduct the next Bar Council Election, after expiry of the present term in 2016, without prescribing minimum qualification like 20 years standing in the Bar or a Senior Counsel, who does not have any Criminal Case or Criminal background for the Candidates to contest Bar Council Elections and till the verification of Advocates is done as per "Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015" by entrusting the functions to an expert body." 13. Therefore, the above suggestions could be placed by Bar Council of India before the Committee appointed by the Honourable Supreme Court, namely, Hon'ble Justice Anil R. Dave Committee, so that the Committee would be in a position to give a comprehensive direction to all the Bar Councils making it necessary for the candidates to disclose these details at the time of filing nominations itself. 14. Post on 13.12.2017.