The judgment of the Madras High Court directing the Centre to consider disbanding the Bar Council of India (BCI) has been challenged by the original petitioner himself..A Bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and UU Lalit of the Supreme Court issued notice to the BCI, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the central government among others..The petitioner, Anantha Murugan, has challenged three specific portions of the judgment which he has claimed was not in consonance with his submissions..The judgment which has been assailed by the petitioner was delivered by Justice N Kirubakaran of Madras High Court on October 6, 2015. Besides disbanding BCI, the Court had also recommended reducing the number of seats in law colleges and giving recognition to only one Bar Association for one court..Murgan’s main grievance is with respect to the absence of any direction in the judgment to weed out existing criminal elements who are already on the rolls of the Bar..The High Court had passed a direction that no person with criminal background should be allowed to be enrolled as an advocate but it had not said anything with respect to such lawyers already on the rolls of different Bar Councils. He has, therefore, sought a direction to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to delete the names of persons with criminal background from the enrolment list..The second main challenge is to the direction given by the High Court to the Central government to consider disbanding the BCI and replacing it with an expert body comprising academicians, retired IAS officers police officers etc. Murugan has submitted that the Court had misconstrued his submission. He has claimed that his submission was that the function of the enrollment and legal education be entrusted with a legal education committee under the chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court Judge..The legal Education Committee could have a former Judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting Chief Justice of any of the High Courts, a distinguished professor of law, Law Secretary and UGC Chairman and also five members of Bar Council of India so that it can exercise the function of enrollment by prohibiting persons with criminal antecedent from entering the Bar. Murugan has claimed that the High Court mistook his submission and gave a direction to replace the BCI with an expert body. He has, therefore, sought for a stay on the said direction..The third challenge is to the time period prescribed by the High Court for contesting Bar Council elections. While the High Court mandated 20 years’ experience, the petitioner has sought 30 years..The case was listed as item 23 in court 10 today. The Bench presided by Justice Gopala Gowda proceeded to issue notice to the respondents after a hearing which lasted less than a minute.
The judgment of the Madras High Court directing the Centre to consider disbanding the Bar Council of India (BCI) has been challenged by the original petitioner himself..A Bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and UU Lalit of the Supreme Court issued notice to the BCI, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the central government among others..The petitioner, Anantha Murugan, has challenged three specific portions of the judgment which he has claimed was not in consonance with his submissions..The judgment which has been assailed by the petitioner was delivered by Justice N Kirubakaran of Madras High Court on October 6, 2015. Besides disbanding BCI, the Court had also recommended reducing the number of seats in law colleges and giving recognition to only one Bar Association for one court..Murgan’s main grievance is with respect to the absence of any direction in the judgment to weed out existing criminal elements who are already on the rolls of the Bar..The High Court had passed a direction that no person with criminal background should be allowed to be enrolled as an advocate but it had not said anything with respect to such lawyers already on the rolls of different Bar Councils. He has, therefore, sought a direction to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to delete the names of persons with criminal background from the enrolment list..The second main challenge is to the direction given by the High Court to the Central government to consider disbanding the BCI and replacing it with an expert body comprising academicians, retired IAS officers police officers etc. Murugan has submitted that the Court had misconstrued his submission. He has claimed that his submission was that the function of the enrollment and legal education be entrusted with a legal education committee under the chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court Judge..The legal Education Committee could have a former Judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting Chief Justice of any of the High Courts, a distinguished professor of law, Law Secretary and UGC Chairman and also five members of Bar Council of India so that it can exercise the function of enrollment by prohibiting persons with criminal antecedent from entering the Bar. Murugan has claimed that the High Court mistook his submission and gave a direction to replace the BCI with an expert body. He has, therefore, sought for a stay on the said direction..The third challenge is to the time period prescribed by the High Court for contesting Bar Council elections. While the High Court mandated 20 years’ experience, the petitioner has sought 30 years..The case was listed as item 23 in court 10 today. The Bench presided by Justice Gopala Gowda proceeded to issue notice to the respondents after a hearing which lasted less than a minute.