The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Bar Council of India's (BCI) opposition to enrolling law graduates facing pending criminal cases, orally observing that the bigger concern was the recognition of law colleges "run in garages" rather than denying enrolment without statutory backing.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan was hearing a petition filed by K.R. Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant-turned-law graduate, whose enrolment as an advocate was denied by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry because a criminal case against him is still pending.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, appearing for Sudersan, argued that the Advocates Act does not prohibit enrolment merely because criminal proceedings are pending. He informed the Court that the Madras High Court has already referred the issue to a five-judge Bench after doubts were raised over earlier directions barring such enrolment.

Goel also pointed out that one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, who had served over three decades in prison, was enrolled as an advocate in April 2026. He argued that the allegations against Sudersan were far less serious and sought his provisional enrolment.

When Senior Advocate S. Gurukrishnakumar, appearing for the BCI, relied on earlier Madras High Court directions, he acknowledged that Section 24A of the Advocates Act does not treat the mere pendency of a criminal case as a ground for disqualification.

Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the restriction had no basis in the statute, remarking:

"You are enrolling convicts right, left and centre, sir... In the entire country."

The Bench directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to provisionally enrol Sudersan and issue his enrolment certificate within two weeks. It also granted two months to the BCI and the State Bar Council to file their responses, followed by one month for the petitioner to file a rejoinder.

After dictating the order, Justice Mehta orally observed:

"We can allow it right now. The order is completely against the law."

When the BCI argued that the issue raised a "larger concern," Justice Mehta responded that the real concern was the BCI granting recognition to substandard institutions.

"The Bar Council of India which grants recognition to colleges that are run in garages, that is the larger concern."

Justice Vikram Nath then jokingly told the BCI counsel:

"You leave the court immediately, otherwise you will get into bigger trouble."

Background

In 2015, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court had directed the BCI not to enrol law graduates facing pending criminal cases. That direction was later upheld by a Full Bench as a temporary measure until Parliament amended the law.

Earlier this year, however, a Division Bench of the High Court referred the correctness of that view to a larger Bench, observing that the Advocates Act does not empower courts to create additional disqualifications for enrolment beyond those contained in Section 24A.

Case: K.R. Sudersan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, W.P. (C) No. 151/2026.