Madras HC grants interim reprieve to lawyers affected by TN Bar Council ban

The Madras High Court yesterday heard a petition filed against the recent move of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to prohibit 742 advocates from practicing law. The Bar Council had found that these advocates were violating Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008..Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules prescribes the minimum qualification required in order to be eligible to apply for admission to a law course..After hearing initial submissions, the First Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, held that it would be against the principle of Natural Justice to prohibit practice by the advocates without first offering them an opportunity to reply to the notice. Three weeks have been given for the reply to be made. The Court also directed that no such adverse action should be taken against the advocates without the leave of the Court..Apart from this stipulation, the Court saw no reason to interfere with the notice. It noted that the Bar Council had inherent powers to take action against those found to be practicing in violation of the prescribed rules. The Court also opined that it would be important for the Bar Council to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, given that it touches upon important questions of law..Following orders passed by Justice N Kirubakaran of the High Court last month, the Bar Council is currently in the process of verifying the credentials of enrolled advocates. These efforts have been aimed at weeding out fake lawyers and ensuring the compliance of established standards..To this end, the Bar Council had recently issued a show cause notice which prohibited the practice of advocates found to have obtained law degrees through Open Universities. The same was issued following a resolution passed by the Council to this effect on November 9, 2017. As many as 742 advocates were affected by the said notice..Protesting this, a PIL was moved against the resolution and notice before the First Bench. The petitioner, a practicing advocate is not among those affected by the impugned notice..It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the orders passed by Justice Kirubakaran, which had triggered the impugned notice, were on a subject irrelevant to the main matter before the judge at the time. Further, it would have been more appropriate if the First Bench had taken up the matter, rather than the Single Judge..The prospective effect of the ruling in Sakthi Rani v The Secretary has also been emphasised. It was argued that the impugned notice also affected advocates who were eligible to practice, given the prospective effect of the ruling regarding Open University degrees in the Sakthi Rani case..Appearing for the Bar Council, Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran however pointed out that the Single Judge was constrained to take up the issue after he was informed that several advocates were found to have been engaging in unruly behaviour during the pendency of the case..He also gave a comprehensive brief of the prescribed educational standards to practice law, with special emphasis on Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules. It was also informed that there are connected matters concerning the verification of advocates currently pending in the Supreme Court..Read Affidavit below