ORDER : S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 25.09.2024 to cancel the enrollment of the 4th respondent as an advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. 2. The complaints of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is facing criminal cases in Crime No.376 of 2022 and Crime No.292 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Tiruvallur District. The 4th respondent is presently holding the post of Vice President at Koduvalli Panchayat. 3. The petitioner states that the law degree obtained by the 4th respondent itself is bogus and it was obtained from an University from Andhra Pradesh. 4. The 1st respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, without conducting verification properly, enrolled the 4th respondent as an advocate. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Bar Council for cancelling the enrollment. Since no action has been taken, the present Writ petition came to be instituted. 5. It is further contended that the 4th respondent has not submitted any declaration before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which is also to be looked into. 6. The issues regarding enrollment of an advocate in the Bar Council during the pendency of the criminal case against such person is no more res integra. In the case of N.Santhosh Kumar Vs. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in W.P.No.19064 of 2024, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein under “.........In the case of S.M.Anantha Murugan Vs. The Chairman and others reported in (2015) 6 CTC 22 , a direction has been issued by the High Court in paragraph 101(3) as under:- “101. Hence, this Court passes the following directions: 1) ..... 2) ..... 3) Bar Council of India shall direct the State Bar Councils not to enrol any law graduate 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.” 5. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case cited supra, is affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi Vs S.M.Anantha Murugan, Advocate reported in 2017 (5) CTC 113. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case cited supra, is affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi Vs S.M.Anantha Murugan, Advocate reported in 2017 (5) CTC 113. Paragraph 18 of the Full Bench judgment reads as under:- “18. Ever increasing criminalisation of the Bar is not in dispute as recorded by the learned Single Judge in S.M.Anantha Murugan V. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, 2015 (6) CTC 22 . A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that he has recommended appropriate measures to be taken by the Bar Council of India in this regard. Pending the recommendation, it was ordered to ensure that candidates with serious offences are not allowed to be enrolled. After all, every stakeholder is interested in upholding the dignity of the profession. It is no doubt true that there is no provision as of now barring such persons from getting enrolled. But then, there is no quibble over the power of the Bar Council of India to act accordingly. That is precisely the reason why a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge. When once the right to practice is governed and controlled by a Statute, then it may not be claimed as absolute. The learned Single Judge has exercised his power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which we do not feel arbitrary. Had the recommendation been considered, by this time, the issue would have been resolved finally one way or other. The Division Bench has not taken into consideration the detailed Order passed by the learned Single Judge in this regard though it may not be binding. The fact remains that the said decision insofar as the issue is concerned, has become final and the Bar Council of India is willing to give its conscious consideration to it. Even the Division Bench seeks to make a difference between different set of offences. In that sense, there is not much of difference in the thinking process adopted by the learned Single Judge in S.M.Anantha Murugan V. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, 2015 (6) CTC 22 and the Division Bench in S.Manikandan V. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council, Chennai, W.P.No.2309 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016. In that sense, there is not much of difference in the thinking process adopted by the learned Single Judge in S.M.Anantha Murugan V. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, 2015 (6) CTC 22 and the Division Bench in S.Manikandan V. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council, Chennai, W.P.No.2309 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016. The observation of the Division Bench that mere registration of F.I.R would not take away the right to get enrolled has to be seek in its own context. Suffice it is to state that the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge and the observation made by the Division Bench on 30.10.2015 have not been brought to the knowledge of the Division Bench. Thus, Direction No.3 issued by the learned Single Judge would stand.” 6. The Full Bench judgment in unequivocal terms held that the direction No.3 issued by the learned Single Judge in Anantha Murugan's case [cited supra] would stand. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Anantha Murugan's case [cited supra] was confirmed by the Full Bench directing the State Bar Council not to enroll any law graduate 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. Admittedly, no amendment has been brought in nor the Bar Council of India issued any Rules. However, the said judgment remains intact and to be followed by all concern. The Full Bench also confirmed the said directions and therefore, it becomes law as far as the enrollment of a person in the State roll is concerned. 7. Purity in profession is the object and in respect of the High Court directions, it is relevant to consider Section34 of The Advocates Act, which provides power of High Courts to make Rules. Sub-Section (1) contemplates that the High Courts may make Rules laying down the conditions, subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts Subordinate thereat. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the judgment is to be construed as Rules within the ambit of Section 34 of The Advocates Act and thus the said conditions confirmed by the Full Bench should operate and to be implemented by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry scrupulously. 7. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the judgment is to be construed as Rules within the ambit of Section 34 of The Advocates Act and thus the said conditions confirmed by the Full Bench should operate and to be implemented by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry scrupulously. 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that many number of persons are submitting applications with bogus law degree and enrolling themselves as advocates, with an idea to secure social status and for different purposes. Therefore, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is expected to be more cautious and vigilant, while scrutinizing the applications submitted for enrollment. All enrollment applications ought to be thoroughly scrutinized and by obtaining necessary all No Objection Certificates (NOC) or details from the competent authorities, Universities etc., wherever required. 8. In respect of bogus law degree or invalid law degree, a thorough enquiry is to be conducted before admitting the applicant for enrollment.Regarding the criminal cases registered against the applicants, necessary inputs must be obtained from the police authorities and other authorities in the manner known to law. Once an advocate is enrolled, the complaint seeking cancellation of enrollment must be entertained and to be processed. In this context, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is directed that, on receipt of any complaint regarding cancellation of enrollment, a report is to be prepared with all relevant facts and the documents and the same must be sent to the Bar Council of India for passing final orders. There should not be any delay in sending such reports to the Bar Council of India, since the delay in dealing with such complaints regarding fraudulent enrollment would result in miscarriage of justice and the person who is otherwise might not entitled to practice as a lawyer will be continuing as a lawyer, which would be detrimental to the public/litigants at large. The professional conduct required that the enrollment must be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The professional conduct required that the enrollment must be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Once a complaint is received and if the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry found that there is a prima-facie case or criminal cases of serious nature are registered and pending against such person, Bar Council is empowered to suspend the practice of a lawyer during the pendency of the complaint, which is to be forwarded to the Bar Council of India for initiation of all appropriate actions to cancel the enrollment. Therefore, at the first instance, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry should act for suspending the practice of such advocate, if there are sufficient reasons and materials available on record to pass such an order. In all other cases, after collecting necessary documents and inputs, the report is to be submitted to the Bar Council of India for conducing enquiry and to pass final orders. The procedures contemplated must be followed scrupulously, so as to ensure that ineligible advocates are not allowed to practice legal profession. 9. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is expected to be sensitive in the matter of enrollment of lawyers in the State roll and initiate all appropriate actions for conducting thorough enquiry before enrollment and to deal with the complaints promptly and vigilantly, without causing any undue delay and issue interim orders, wherever appropriate and initiate all further actions by following the due process as contemplated under the Act and Rules. 10. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the 1st respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the manner known to law and the said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.