Madras High Court Issues Notice On Congress MP R Sudha's Plea Challenging Rajiv Gandhi Assassin’s Enrolment As Advocate
The plea contends that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, is unconstitutional insofar as it permits enrolment of persons convicted and sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment after release.
Congress MP Advocate R. Sudha has moved the Madras High Court, challenging the enrolment of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict A.G. Perarivalan as an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and seeking a declaration that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional so far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced to death penalty and imprisonment for life.
Earlier, the Member of Parliament had written to the President of India seeking suspension of the enrolment of Perarivalan.
The Bench comprising Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar issued notice in the writ petition today, returnable on June 10, 2026.
The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, also sought an interim suspension of his enrolment and a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate “the affairs and the manner of enrolment” of Perarivalan as an advocate.
R. Sudha, Member of Parliament from the Mayiladuthurai constituency, a practising for 26 years before the Madras High Court, City Civil Courts and Family Courts, stated in the petition that she was “shocked to see from the press media and social media” that Perarivalan had been enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on April 27, 2026.
Referring to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the petition stated that Perarivalan was convicted for offences under Sections 109, 120B and 302 IPC and that the Supreme Court, while confirming the conviction and death sentence in 1999, had observed that the “conduct of Arivu (A-18) before and after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi leaves no one in doubt that he was a member of the conspiracy.”
The plea further reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that Perarivalan “knew that to explode the IED power source would be 9 volt battery and that is why he purchased a battery of that power, which was ultimately used in exploding the device killing Rajiv Gandhi and others.”
The MP acknowledged that the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2014 and that the Supreme Court subsequently ordered Perarivalan’s release in 2022 in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the petition contended that the release granted by the Supreme Court owing to the delay in consideration of remission “will not wipe off the guilt of the 6th respondent.”
Relying upon Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), the plea stated that the Supreme Court had already highlighted the need to reconsider Section 24A of the Advocates Act. The petition reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that “a person convicted of even a most heinous offence is eligible to be enrolled as an advocate after expiry of two years from expiry of his sentence” and that “this aspect needs urgent attention of all concerned.”
The petition also relied upon observations made by the Gujarat High Court in ‘C’ v. Bar Council of Gujarat (1982), wherein the Court had questioned whether passage of two years after release could “cleanse such a person of the corrupt character trait, purify his mind and transform him into a person fit for being enrolled as a member of this noble profession”.
The plea further cited Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali (2001), wherein the Supreme Court observed that “purging means to get himself cleared of the guilt” and held that merely undergoing punishment does not amount to purging contempt.
Apart from challenging Section 24A of the Advocates Act, the petition also questioned the validity of Perarivalan’s educational qualifications. The plea stated that Perarivalan completed higher secondary education after obtaining undergraduate and postgraduate degrees through the open university system and contended that such qualifications would not satisfy eligibility requirements under the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008.
The petition reproduced Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008, which states that applicants “who have obtained 10 +2 or graduation/postgraduation through the Open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses.”
The plea further alleged irregularities in the enrolment process conducted by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It stated that elections to the Bar Council had already been notified and that the office-bearers had ceased to hold office. The petition alleged that despite this, the enrolment ceremony was conducted on April 27, 2026 and further claims that Perarivalan’s name did not appear in the enrolment list uploaded on the Bar Council website even after the conclusion of the enrolment process.
Questioning the urgency behind the enrolment, the plea stated: “The members/ office bearers of the 4th respondent have shown undue urgency to enrol the 6th respondent, which is completely bewildering and suspicious.”
The petition further stated that “the legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation” and that advocates, as officers of the court, are entrusted with access to judicial records and justice delivery institutions.
Relying upon observations made by the Delhi High Court in Yogendra Prakash Jauhari v. Bar Council of India (2012), the plea stated that advocates are “expected to possess not only intellectual purity but also owe a responsibility to the Court to present the case dispassionately in an upright, dignified, ethical manner”.
The MP sought a declaration that Section 24A of the Advocates Act is unconstitutional to the extent it permits enrolment of persons convicted and sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment, a declaration that Perarivalan’s enrolment is illegal and void, an interim suspension of his enrolment and a direction for investigation into the enrolment process.
