[ High Court of Judicature at Madras ]

Madras HC Suo Motu Impleads Bar Council of India and Tamil Nadu Bar Council Over Advocates Facing Criminal Cases

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy acted on a quashing petition to flag an institutional concern: nearly 30–40 criminal matters involving practising advocates reach the court every working day.

Manaswi Singh — 30 July 2026 — 7 min read

While hearing a routine quashing petition filed by a practising advocate from Salem, the Madras High Court on 23 July 2026 stepped beyond the immediate dispute to address what it described as an institutional concern about the legal profession. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly, suo motu impleaded the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry as respondents in B. Jagadeeshwaran v. The State Rep by its Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station & Ors. The court directed both statutory bodies to study the scale and nature of criminal prosecutions pending against practising advocates and to consider framing appropriate regulatory measures. The matter is listed for 24 August 2026.

The Petition Before the Court

The petitioner, B. Jagadeeshwaran, a practising advocate and member of the Bar Council, approached the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. His petition, registered as CRL OP No. 19749 of 2026, arose from Crime No. 163 of 2026 registered at Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District. The second respondent, R. Srinivasan, is a private party in the matter.

Mr. C. Deepakkumar appeared for the petitioner. Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), accepted notice for the first respondent — the State represented by the Inspector of Police. The court issued notice to the second respondent returnable by 24 August 2026 and permitted private service as well. It also allowed the respondent police to proceed with the investigation in the meantime and directed them to file a counter affidavit before the next date of hearing.

The Trend the Court Identified

Rather than confining itself to the individual petition, Justice Chakravarthy recorded observations drawn from a pattern visible across a large volume of matters. The court has been regularly dealing with petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. A considerable number of these petitions, the court noted, have been filed by practising advocates or persons seeking enrolment, primarily seeking quashment of criminal proceedings or other ancillary reliefs.

Two distinct categories emerged. In the first, petitioners argue that they were already arrayed as accused in criminal cases before their enrolment as advocates, and that pending criminal proceedings cannot by itself be a ground to deny them the right to practise. In the second, allegations are made that certain advocates continue to indulge in criminal activities even after enrolment. The court also observed that in several instances such persons have become office-bearers or leaders of various Bar Associations.

The court was direct about the scale: “On almost every working day, this Court is dealing with nearly 30 to 40 criminal matters involving practising advocates.” That volume, in the court's view, moved the issue from isolated incidents to a systemic concern requiring institutional attention.

Why the Court Declined to Treat This as an Isolated Matter

Justice Chakravarthy was careful to reaffirm the bedrock principle: the mere registration of an FIR does not attach stigma to a person, and every accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The court stated plainly that this fundamental principle cannot be diluted.

The concern, however, shifted when persons facing multiple criminal prosecutions seek to occupy leadership positions in Bar Associations. Advocates are officers of the court and an integral part of the justice delivery system. The court asked whether persons facing serious criminal allegations, if they become office-bearers of Bar Associations in increasing numbers, would be in a position to effectively safeguard clients' interests and uphold the dignity of the profession.

The court made equally clear that its observations were not directed at the present petitioner or any individual advocate. “The concern expressed by this Court is purely institutional.” If a substantial section of the legal fraternity is personally involved in criminal litigation, the court reasoned, it has the potential to affect the image of the Bar and, in the long run, the credibility of the justice delivery system itself.

What the Court Asked the Bar Councils to Do

The court identified the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and the Bar Council of India as the statutory authorities entrusted with regulating the legal profession. Both are empowered to frame rules and policies on enrolment and on eligibility for holding office in Bar Associations.

Justice Chakravarthy suggested that the Bar Councils may consider engaging competent researchers or constituting a committee to undertake a detailed survey. The survey should cover: the number of practising advocates facing criminal prosecutions; the nature of such offences; whether the alleged offences predate enrolment or occurred after; the number of office-bearers of Bar Associations facing criminal cases; and whether such cases arise from professional activities including protest-related incidents, or involve offences of moral turpitude or other serious crimes. Such data, the court observed, would provide the empirical foundation for informed policy decisions and appropriate regulatory measures.

The court noted that the order was passed in the presence of Mrs. Greetha Senthilkumar, Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, who was present in court that day.

Suo Motu Impleadment and Directions

Acting suo motu, the court impleaded two new respondents to the proceedings:

The Bar Council of India, represented by its Chairman, Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, 21 Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi — 110 002, as the third respondent.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, represented by its Chairman, Mr. P.S. Amalraj, High Court Campus, Chennai, as the fourth respondent.

The Registry was directed to serve a complete set of papers on the Standing Counsel appearing for both Bar Councils. The newly impleaded respondents were given liberty to appear and place their views, suggestions, and any practical difficulties regarding the directions issued.

The court further made clear that upon considering the responses 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.

Order

The court issued notice to the second respondent returnable by 24 August 2026, with private notice also permitted. 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. The Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were suo motu impleaded as the third and fourth respondents. The Registry was directed to serve papers on their Standing Counsel. The matter is listed for 24 August 2026.