Dealing With 30 To 40 Criminal Cases Involving Advocates Every Day: Madras High Court Asks Bar Councils To Undertake Detailed Survey
The Madras High Court was considering a Petition filed by a practising advocate and a member of the Bar Council seeking quashing of criminal records.
Taking note of the increasing number of applications filed by practising advocates or persons seeking to enrol for quashing of the criminal proceedings against them, the Madras High Court has called for a policy decision to be made by the Bar Councils and a Committee to undertake a detailed survey regarding the number of advocates facing criminal prosecutions.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by a practising advocate and a member of the Bar Council seeking quashing of records on the file of the Inspector of Police of Kannankurichi Police Station.
The Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy stated, “The concern is with the alarming number of such cases that are being brought before this Court. On almost every working day, this Court is dealing with nearly 30 to 40 criminal matters involving practising advocates. If a substantial / 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, in the long run, the credibility of the justice delivery system itself.”
“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”, it added.
Advocate C.Deepakkumar represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M. Mohamed Riyaz represented the Respondent.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the regularity of the petitions being filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It was noticed that a considerable number of such petitions have been filed by practising advocates or persons seeking to enrol, primarily seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings or other ancillary reliefs.
The Bench further noticed that in one category of cases, the petitioners were already arrayed as accused in criminal cases before their enrolment as advocates and in another category of cases, allegations were made that certain advocates continued to indulge in criminal activities even after enrolment. “It is further noticed that, in several instances, such persons eventually become office-bearers / leaders of various Bar Association”, the Bench stated.
Highlighting how an increasing number of such cases are assuming alarming proportions, the Bench suggested that an appropriate policy decision may be required at the level of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and the Bar Council of India.
The Bench concluded the matter by permitting the respondent police to proceed with the investigation and directing them to file their counter affidavit. The Bench impleaded the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry as party respondents.
The matter has been listed on August 24, 2026.
Cause Title: B. Jagadeeshwaran v. The State (Case No.: CRL OP No. 19749 of 2026)