JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to enrol the petitioners as Advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry within a time frame fixed by this Court.) Common Order: R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The prayer made in these two writ petitions is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to enrol the petitioners as advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry within a time frame to be specified by this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petitions, would run thus: (i) According to the petitioner in WP No. 10186 of 2022, after completing his B.Com. degree in the year 2004, he joined the 3 year LLB course in Sri Krishna Institute of Law, Tumkur, Karnataka during the year 2014 and he was declared as pass only during September 2021, though the course was completed in the year 2017. While so, due to matrimonial dispute, his wife preferred a complaint on 17.08.2017 before the All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, which was registered as Crime No. 6 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 406, 494 and 506 (ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 read with Section 109 of IPC against the petitioner, his parents and sister. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioner was arrested and was later released on bail. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the said case and it was taken on file as C.C. No. 29 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, in which, trial is yet to commence. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application for enrolment on 01.12.2021 along with all the requisite documents. In the said application, he has promptly disclosed the pendency of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. However, he was not permitted to enrol himself as an advocate by citing the pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, this writ petition bearing no.10186 of 2022. (ii) According to the petitioner in WP No. 12315 of 2022, she completed her five year LLB Course in Government Law College, Chengalpattu, in July 2021. However, he was not permitted to enrol himself as an advocate by citing the pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, this writ petition bearing no.10186 of 2022. (ii) According to the petitioner in WP No. 12315 of 2022, she completed her five year LLB Course in Government Law College, Chengalpattu, in July 2021. After completing the course, she submitted an application for enrolment to the respondent, in which, she has categorically indicated in Column No. 13(b) about the pendency of a criminal case in Crime No. 849 of 2020 on the file of Vengal Police Station, Tiruvallur District, on 11.05.2020 registered against her (A10) for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 294 (b), 323 and 506(i) IPC; and till date, no charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional court. Though the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case, due to the pendency of the same, her application seeking enrolment was not considered by the respondent. Therefore, this writ petition by the petitioner. 3. Mr.Sathia Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that mere registration of first information report against the petitioners should not be put against them to deny the benefit of enrolment as advocate. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the criminal proceedings are at nascent stage and the trial of the same would take considerable time and hence, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners may be permitted to enrol themselves as advocates by the respondent. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by this Court in Crl.OP (MD) No. 14573 of 2014 in S.M. Anantha Murugan v. Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi and others [CDJ 2015 MHC 7352], wherein this court has inter alia issued a direction to the Bar Council of India, to direct the State Bar Councils not to enrol any law graduates with pending criminal cases except bailable cases attracting punishment upto three years and compoundable offences involving matrimonial, family and civil disputes, till the changes are brought in the Advocates Act & Bar Council of India Rules. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the criminal cases pending against the petitioners are arising out of matrimonial dispute and petty issues; the offences involved are compoundable / bailable in nature; and hence, their applications seeking enrolment as Advocates, may be directed to be considered by the respondent in the light of the said order of this court. 4. Per contra, Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar, learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that even though the petitioners have disclosed the pendency of the criminal proceedings in their applications submitted for enrolment, they cannot, as a matter of right, seek to enrol themselves as an advocate. The learned counsel produced a list of applicants numbering 135, who sought for enrolment as advocate, facing criminal prosecution, along with the details of the criminal cases and submitted that if the prayer made in these writ petitions is allowed, it will be cited as a precedent, in which event, the respondent will be highly prejudiced. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondent in anticipating a candidate, who enters into the legal profession, to possess good qualities, such as integrity, honesty, rectitude and commitment towards the society. Keeping in mind the same, the respondent, upon receipt of the applications for enrolment, would verify the antecedent of the candidates thoroughly. If persons with criminal background or facing criminal cases are permitted to enrol as advocates, it would be a mockery of the justice delivery system and it would put an end to the rule of law. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 24-A of The Advocates Act, the learned counsel submitted that the persons against whom criminal cases are pending, cannot be permitted to be enrolled. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners have to await for the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against them and therefore, they are not entitled for any relief in these writ petitions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 6. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioners are facing criminal prosecution, at the time of making applications for enrolment as Advocates before the respondent. It is their specific claim that the criminal cases were falsely registered against the petitioners and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. 6. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioners are facing criminal prosecution, at the time of making applications for enrolment as Advocates before the respondent. It is their specific claim that the criminal cases were falsely registered against the petitioners and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Furthermore, the offences are compoundable and bailable in nature and hence, their applications may be directed to be considered by the respondent. 7. Having to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondent to dispose the applications of the petitioners seeking enrolment as Advocate, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioners to place all the connected materials, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.