Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), filed by a practising advocate seeking relief in relation to criminal proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., while permitting the respondent police to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, expressed concern over the increasing number of criminal matters involving practising advocates coming before the Court. Observing that advocates are officers of the Court and constitute an integral part of the justice delivery system, the Court held that the issue had reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision may be required at the level of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP). The Court, therefore, suo motu impleaded both statutory authorities to place their views before the Court and to facilitate consideration of framing appropriate rules or guidelines based on a comprehensive study regarding practising advocates facing criminal prosecutions.
Background
The petition arose from a criminal case in which relief was sought under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS. The government advocate took notice for the first respondent. The Court issued notice to the second respondent, returnable by 24 August 2026, and permitted private notice. In the meanwhile, the respondent police were permitted to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and directed to file their counter-affidavit before the next date of hearing.
During the course of hearing petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, the Court noticed an increasing trend. In one category of cases, it was contended that the petitioners were already arrayed as accused in criminal cases before their enrolment as advocates and that such pendency of criminal proceedings could not, by itself, be a ground to deny them the right to practise the profession. In another category of cases, allegations were made that certain advocates continued to indulge in criminal activities even after enrolment. It was further noticed that, in several instances, such persons eventually became office-bearers or leaders of various Bar Associations.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that there can be no dispute with the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the mere registration of an FIR does not attach any stigma to a person. Every accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty in accordance with law, and this fundamental principle cannot be diluted.
However, the Court observed that when persons facing multiple criminal prosecutions become members of the Bar and thereafter aspire to occupy leadership positions in Bar Associations, the issue assumes a different dimension. The Court highlighted that advocates are officers of the Court and constitute an integral part of the justice delivery system. If persons facing serious criminal allegations become office-bearers of Bar Associations and their number manifoldly increases in every Bar, a legitimate concern arises as to whether they would be in a position to effectively safeguard the interests of the clients whom they represent and uphold the dignity and values expected of the legal profession.
The Court noted that it was not concerned with isolated instances involving 1 or 2 advocates. The concern was with the alarming number of such cases that were being brought before the Court. The Court observed that on almost every working day it was dealing with nearly 30 to 40 criminal matters involving practising advocates. If a substantial or large section of the legal fraternity is personally involved in criminal litigation, it has the potential not only to affect the image of the Bar but, in the long run, the credibility of the justice delivery system itself.
The Court was of the considered view that the issue had reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision may be required at the level of BCTNP and BCI, which are the statutory authorities entrusted with regulating the legal profession. The Court made it clear that these observations were not intended to cast any aspersion upon the present petitioner or any other individual advocate and that the concern expressed was purely institutional. The Court observed that a comprehensive and objective study of the prevailing situation had become imperative.
The Court further observed that the Bar Councils may consider engaging competent researchers or constituting an appropriate committee to undertake a detailed survey regarding the number of practising advocates facing criminal prosecutions, the nature of such offences, whether the alleged offences relate to the period prior to enrolment or subsequent thereto, the number of office-bearers of various Bar Associations who are facing criminal cases, and whether such cases arise out of professional activities, including protest-related incidents, or involve offences involving moral turpitude or other serious crimes.
The Court observed that such an exercise would provide the necessary empirical data to enable the statutory authorities to consider framing appropriate rules or guidelines. The Court further noted that any survey or research undertaken would facilitate the collection of reliable factual data, which in turn would assist the statutory authorities in taking informed policy decisions and framing appropriate regulatory measures.
Also Read: BCI Issues Digital Ethics Guidelines: No Courtroom Reels, Client Testimonials or Legal Influencing
Decision
Accordingly, while permitting the respondent police to proceed with the investigation and directing them to file their counter-affidavit, the Court suo motu impleaded BCI and BCTNP as respondents. The Registry was directed to serve a complete set of papers on the Standing Counsel appearing for BCI and BCTNP. The newly impleaded respondents were granted liberty to place their views, suggestions and any practical difficulties before the Court.
The Court further made it clear that, upon considering the response of the newly impleaded respondents, it would issue such further or modified directions as may be necessary regarding the manner in which the relevant data is to be collected, analysed and placed before the Court for considering the larger issues involved. The Court directed to list the matter on 24 August 2026.
[B. Jagadeeshwaran v. State, CRL.O.P. No. 19749 of 2026, decided on 23-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: C. Deepakkumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: M.M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate